NationStates Jolt Archive

This rant only strictly applies to the American definition of conservative and liberal. I know that out there in the real world, these two things are not viewed as polar opposites but here in the magic microcosm of the US, we like to pretend they are. We also like to pretend that liberal means "left wing," as if there really even is a legitimate left wing in the US as opposed to the far right business party and the center right business party. When I say conservative in this rant, I mean what Hannity and Bill-O call "conservative."

I always think it strange how so called "conservatives" love to talk about how they want smaller government. Yet, if you talk to most of these people, they support increasing the military, as if a military almost as large as the rest of the world combined isn't big enough, they usually support the war on drugs, an increase in the number of police, an increase in censorship based on an arbitrary standard of morality, prevention of gay marriage, government subsidies to corporations, yet giving money to single mothers who can't afford basic medical care for their children is "socialism," continued American imperialism abroad in order to secure more corporate capital, government subsidies given to religious organizations, increasing the role of religion in politics, the politicization, unreasonable regulation, and denial of science, and fun little things like warrant-less wiretapping and the oh-so-constitutional and not abuse-prone Patriot Act.

This is excluding blue laws, such as the odd laws forbidding businesses from being open on an arbitrary day of the weak, forbidding the sale of alcohol, the laws forbidding atheists and agnostics from holding office in some states, or forbidding the sale of porn/sex toys, as these laws are often local and not federal, but this is beside the point. My real question is this: "Where the hell is the small government in all this?" At least the "liberal" Democrats never parade how pro small government they are.

I think part of this problem is that in America the waters have been so muddied that the words liberal and conservative are completely vague and without meaning, but that is not the whole problem. The real thing that pisses me off is this, the group of people who are so opposed to big government want to increase the role of the government in the business world and in people's personal lives AT LEAST as much as the ones they accuse of being for "taxes and big government." I swear, this is the only country in the Western World where a significant portion of the population believes that no one should have to pay any taxes at all.

Here's the truth: When it comes to increasing the power of the powerful, they're all for big government. When it comes to increasing the power of the powerless and disenfranchised, "shut up you Godless commie, these people need to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps.'"

/rant

This should be titled "The Myth of a Conservative Small Government," not "The Myth of Small Government."

Other than that, there are some pretty good arguments here. Carry on. :)

I disagree with your views on small government, but you make plenty of good arguments against the Conservatives here.

Oh, and welcome to NSG. Please leave your sanity with the talking refrigerator.

shut up you Godless commie, these people need to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps.



:p (seriously though aren't all forms of conservatism about smashing unions anyway?)

I disagree with your views on small government, but you make plenty of good arguments against the Conservatives here.

there are conservatives on nsG?

um yes?

there are conservatives on nsG?

One of them even infiltrated the mod-squad.

there are conservatives on nsG?
I meant erm...Uh... Someone. Out there. Somewhere.

I do applaud you for willing to state what, at least in my view, is an obvious hypocrisy from US conservatives. There are some out there that truly do believe in small government, but sadly most of them tend to take the positions that you've mentioned.

I am the talking refrigerator, I fuck rocks.

But please do continue. In fact please address this rant to Canadians and not just Americans. It does apply.

I disagree with your views on small government, but you make plenty of good arguments against the Conservatives here.

Oh, and welcome to NSG. Please leave your sanity with the talking refrigerator.

How could I leave something that I never had to begin with?:p

As for small government, I'm not really against small government, as a rule, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republican party.

Ideally, I agree with Noam Chomsky that the burden of proof is on the authority to prove its legitimacy. In other words, authority is illegitimate until proven otherwise. However, I don't conceive of such a system composed only of voluntary free association and rule by consent working in reality. I'm skeptical of it, but I wish it were possible.

My realistic political beliefs are all about personal individual liberty. Economically speaking, I tend to be all over the place. I'm very pragmatic when it comes to economics because I believe that economic policy is just a tool, so I don't look at it ideologically. Here's how I justify government regulation of businesses:

I, as an individual, am not free to use my own personal property however I choose, nor do I believe I should be. If I had my way, I'd give people much, much more personal freedom, but I still wouldn't be okay with someone using his/her own knife, even though it's his/hers, to kill someone, or to mug someone.

In a similar manner, even though certain business structures, like proprietorships, are completely the property of a single individual, that individual cannot use that business to do whatever he/she wishes, and since trivial corporate decisions have a more massive impact than trivial individual decisions, it only stands to reason that there be more regulation on corporations. We also must STOP the horrible imperialistic actions that we take abroad in order to secure more capital.

Now, of course, as a realist, I am aware that no government intervention is without a trade-off. But, while perfectly competitive markets and monopolistic competition are the ideal state of trade in terms of efficiency and diversity, they are not always the correct solution, and certainly should have some minimum standards even if they are. I know that the government can make things worse when it intervenes, (Iraq) but it also can make things better. (WWII - for the most part) It just requires the judgment to know when intervention is appropriate and when it is not, and to be able to intervene in such a way that the situation is actually improved. Sadly, most of the geniuses down in D.C. lack the aforementioned judgment.

Oh yes it does.

How could I leave something that I never had to begin with?:p

As for small government, I'm not really against small government, as a rule, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republican party.

Ideally, I agree with Noam Chomsky that the burden of proof is on the authority to prove its legitimacy. In other words, authority is illegitimate until proven otherwise. However, I don't conceive of such a system composed only of voluntary free association and rule by consent working in reality. I'm skeptical of it, but I wish it were possible.

My realistic political beliefs are all about personal individual liberty. Economically speaking, I tend to be all over the place. I'm very pragmatic when it comes to economics because I believe that economic policy is just a tool, so I don't look at it ideologically. Here's how I justify government regulation of businesses:

I, as an individual, am not free to use my own personal property however I choose, nor do I believe I should be. If I had my way, I'd give people much, much more personal freedom, but I still wouldn't be okay with someone using his/her own knife, even though it's his/hers, to kill someone, or to mug someone.

In a similar manner, even though certain business structures, like proprietorships, are completely the property of a single individual, that individual cannot use that business to do whatever he/she wishes, and since trivial corporate decisions have a more massive impact than trivial individual decisions, it only stands to reason that there be more regulation on corporations. We also must STOP the horrible imperialistic actions that we take abroad in order to secure more capital.

Now, of course, as a realist, I am aware that no government intervention is without a trade-off. But, while perfectly competitive markets and monopolistic competition are the ideal state of trade in terms of efficiency and diversity, they are not always the correct solution, and certainly should have some minimum standards even if they are. I know that the government can make things worse when it intervenes, (Iraq) but it also can make things better. (WWII - for the most part) It just requires the judgment to know when intervention is appropriate and when it is not, and to be able to intervene in such a way that the situation is actually improved. Sadly, most of the geniuses down in D.C. lack the aforementioned judgment.
Ah, okay then. Our disagreement is on a much smaller scale then.;)

shut up you Godless commie, these people need to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps.



:p (seriously though aren't all forms of conservatism about smashing unions anyway?)



there are conservatives on nsG?

Yes though we are few and far between ^^

But the military and the police really aren't the government. Conservatives favour small government but support a strong police force and military.

Also, same-sex marriage and a laissez-faire stance on drugs doesn't always reflect small government.

If you want small government, come on down to The Collective of Free Nations

One of them even infiltrated the mod-squad.

so thats why we have ads now ;)

I meant erm...Uh... Someone. Out there. Somewhere.

Gameplay?

We also must STOP the horrible imperialistic actions

how is the US imperialistic :confused:

But the military and the police really aren't the government. Conservatives favour small government but support a strong police force and military.

Also, same-sex marriage and a laissez-faire stance on drugs doesn't always reflect small government.

If you want small government, come on down to The Collective of Free Nations

Ah, yes, Police and the Military aren't part of the government, just like your legs and arms aren't part of your body.

This rant only strictly applies to the American definition of conservative and liberal. I know that out there in the real world, these two things are not viewed as polar opposites but here in the magic microcosm of the US, we like to pretend they are. We also like to pretend that liberal means "left wing," as if there really even is a legitimate left wing in the US as opposed to the far right business party and the center right business party. When I say conservative in this rant, I mean what Hannity and Bill-O call "conservative."

I always think it strange how so called "conservatives" love to talk about how they want smaller government. Yet, if you talk to most of these people, they support increasing the military, as if a military almost as large as the rest of the world combined isn't big enough, they usually support the war on drugs, an increase in the number of police, an increase in censorship based on an arbitrary standard of morality, prevention of gay marriage, government subsidies to corporations, yet giving money to single mothers who can't afford basic medical care for their children is "socialism," continued American imperialism abroad in order to secure more corporate capital, government subsidies given to religious organizations, increasing the role of religion in politics, the politicization, unreasonable regulation, and denial of science, and fun little things like warrant-less wiretapping and the oh-so-constitutional and not abuse-prone Patriot Act.

This is excluding blue laws, such as the odd laws forbidding businesses from being open on an arbitrary day of the weak, forbidding the sale of alcohol, the laws forbidding atheists and agnostics from holding office in some states, or forbidding the sale of porn/sex toys, as these laws are often local and not federal, but this is beside the point. My real question is this: "Where the hell is the small government in all this?" At least the "liberal" Democrats never parade how pro small government they are.

I think part of this problem is that in America the waters have been so muddied that the words liberal and conservative are completely vague and without meaning, but that is not the whole problem. The real thing that pisses me off is this, the group of people who are so opposed to big government want to increase the role of the government in the business world and in people's personal lives AT LEAST as much as the ones they accuse of being for "taxes and big government." I swear, this is the only country in the Western World where a significant portion of the population believes that no one should have to pay any taxes at all.

Here's the truth: When it comes to increasing the power of the powerful, they're all for big government. When it comes to increasing the power of the powerless and disenfranchised, "shut up you Godless commie, these people need to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps.'"

/rant

I have to agree with Blue-Laws (like, for instance, California's Prop 8, which is a blue-law writ large).

But you need to understand something- "Conservative" and "Liberal" in the U.S. have so many different meanings that they're virtually indistinguishable on the macro scale.

"Religious Conservatives", for instance, are not the same as "Libertarian Conservatives" or "National Security Conservatives", and none of those are really "Small Government" conservatives-though the "Libertarian", "National Security" and "Small Government" factions share more in terms of basic belief system than they do with "Religious" or "Culture-wars" conservatives.

Religious and National Security Conservatives tend to share more ideas than religious conservatives and the other types. They're prominent mainly because they Organize and vote-though usually in tandem with non-conservative "Neo Conservatives", which are just "Big Business Republicans" rebranded for the market of the nineties.

Small-Government and Libertarian Conservatives want less government, less regulations, regulations that can be enforced, and government limited to what it is (by law and the constitution) supposed to do. This is the main common ground they have with National Security Conservatives, since (per the Constitution) National Security from foreign threats is a legitimate function of government, and money spent maintaining it makes big wars like WWII less likely (and the infringements that resulted from needing to conduct that war less likely.)

Religious Conservatives want...what Culture-Wars conservatives want, and will tolerate or even agitate in favour of expanding Government to get it-this makes them natural allies of Big Business Conservatives, since big Government favours Big business (for example: see Wall Street Bailout). Sometimes their desires fall in line with National Security conservatives, (ala the last eight years of the Bush presidency), but even worse, their desire to expand power over people's private lives occasionally matches up with what we traditionally term "Left" policies (aka Proposition 8's passage in California).
This is because often "Street Level" big-government Left interests are aligned with Cultural/Religious Conservative moralities. The Abortion ruckus is another example of where this is true.

On the flip side, Libertarian conservatives have largely moved to electing Democrats, since L-Cons tend to be sensitive to gun-control issues. Likewise Small Government Cons tend to be inclined to vote "Law and order" candidates, and the Democratic Party's outreach to "blue dogs" in their ranks has resulted in several NRA "A" rated Democrats unseating Republicans with slightly...Less concern for personal liberties. (that, and the string of REPUBLICAN crime scandals.)

The field is both more polarized, and less polarized now, than it was in '94 (the second congressional election I voted in), and the sides are (outside of the internet) less obvious now. I voted to retain a Senator who, while a congresswoman, I voted against-because she is more conservative in her ACTIONS (that is, fiscally conservative, national security conservative, AND Small government Conservative) than the Republican who ran against her this time. Cantwell's a Democrat, and while she was a Congresswoman, she was a toe-the-line Party First Democrat. Six years on the outs, she somehow discovered what "The Party of Jefferson" meant, and she's been consistently good (if on the losing side too often) at doing what (in my opinion) she ought as a Liberty Conservative. (not as much as I'd like, but better than the holy-rollers she's had to run against!)

so, things are more complicated in terms of defining "Sides" than MSNBC or Fox News would like you to believe.

Yeah, I mentioned in my posts that the waters have been muddied in that liberal and conservative have no real meaning anymore, but the general pattern of belief I was attacking was the Sean Hannity/Bill O'Rielly worldview that they propagate as the only form of conservatism. This type of conservatism is what the Republican party and that puppet Sarah Palin represent. It's also part of the overall talking points of the Republican party. I was just examining the talking point of small government and showing how it was mostly a myth. I am aware of libertarians, but they have been mostly forgotten by the Republican party since Barry Goldwater.

Yeah, I mentioned in my posts that the waters have been muddied in that liberal and conservative have no real meaning anymore, but the general pattern of belief I was attacking was the Sean Hannity/Bill O'Rielly worldview that they propagate as the only form of conservatism. This type of conservatism is what the Republican party and that puppet Sarah Palin represent. It's also part of the overall talking points of the Republican party. I was just examining the talking point of small government and showing how it was mostly a myth. I am aware of libertarians, but they have been mostly forgotten by the Republican party since Barry Goldwater.

Well, it is interesting, is it not, that the Libertarian Party candidate of 1996 was a Republican hopeful in 2008?

But I see your point...and am constantly frustrated by its true validity in most ways (though I'd suggest you look more closely at conditions in Alaska politics before repeating the Daily Kos judgement of Palin. She may have weird religious beliefs, but in practice she doesn't have a record of making policy on them-unlike, say, Dick the Dick Cheney. Palin's record more often shows neither lockstep with the party, nor with her own professed religious convictions. She vetoed a bill that would have denied marital rights to gays, and you can't tell me that her ex brother in law deserves to wear a badge-the guy's a drunk-driver, poacher, and wifebeater. firing his boss for not firing his ass was found legit by a committee intent on collecting her head...)

My greatest frustration as a small-government/liberty conservative, is that the Republicans are sucking the cock of the radical religious right and bending over for Big Business, and the Democrats are doing the same with the tenured socialists on the Left and Big Business.

It's like the idea of accepting the consequences of our actions, and in exchange, having the right to take those actions, is anathema to both parties. I don't want my country to turn into another state of Europe.

Sarah Palin is a blindly ambitious and downright frightening individual. What you need to remember about the Republicans, and for that matter, the Democrats as well, is that they don't give a shit about you, or this country, or our failing economy, or any principles at all. The only thing they care about is expanding and maintaining power.

Ah, yes, Police and the Military aren't part of the government, just like your legs and arms aren't part of your body.

except they're not, really. the definition of a government is the governing authority of the state, or parts of the state. The police have no governing authority. They are employees of the government, in that they are paid by the governing authority, but they're not part of the government.

So, actually...no, your analogy is totally wrong.

There is an assumption that Bush is a conservative. If you look at the budgets, he most assuredly is not. The beginner of this discussion confuses neo-conservatives with real conservatives.

There is an assumption that Bush is a conservative. If you look at the budgets, he most assuredly is not. The beginner of this discussion confuses neo-conservatives with real conservatives.

yes yes, the myth of the "true conservative"

except they're not, really. the definition of a government is the governing authority of the state, or parts of the state. The police have no governing authority. They are employees of the government, in that they are paid by the governing authority, but they're not part of the government.

So, actually...no, your analogy is totally wrong.

But the major purpose of the military and the police is to enforce the interests of the state. Perhaps explicitly, an increase in military spending or an increase in police power is not an increase in government control, but that's simply semantics. Ultimately, the more power the police have, the more power the government has. Historically, massive police forces and massive military spending tend to move toward a fascist state.

But the major purpose of the military and the police is to enforce the interests of the state. Perhaps explicitly, an increase in military spending or an increase in police power is not an increase in government control, but that's simply semantics. Ultimately, the more power the police have, the more power the government has. Historically, massive police forces and massive military spending tend to move toward a fascist state.

sure, fine, I'm not arguing with that, I'm merely stating that police and military are not PART of the government because they do not, in and of themselves, have any authority to govern, which is the fundamental definition of "government". They are tools of the government, they are employees of the government, but they are not PART of the government.

Just as I am an employee of a corporation, but am separate and distinct from the individual entity that is "the corporation"

sure, fine, I'm not arguing with that, I'm merely stating that police and military are not PART of the government because they do not, in and of themselves, have any authority to govern, which is the fundamental definition of "government". They are tools of the government, they are employees of the government, but they are not PART of the government.

Just as I am an employee of a corporation, but am separate and distinct from the individual entity that is "the corporation"

Technically though, they can be considered to be part of the government, same as how your hands and legs can be considered to be part of you, in the identity sense. Your brains may make the decisions as to what to do, but it is the hands and legs that carry them out. The analogy holds I think.

sure, fine, I'm not arguing with that, I'm merely stating that police and military are not PART of the government because they do not, in and of themselves, have any authority to govern, which is the fundamental definition of "government". They are tools of the government, they are employees of the government, but they are not PART of the government.

Just as I am an employee of a corporation, but am separate and distinct from the individual entity that is "the corporation"
Nitpicker. As employees of the government, they are paid for with tax dollars, and to the extent that government size, presence and intrusiveness is measured by its budget, a large military and large police forces is an indicator of bigger government.

Please keep in mind that the manner in which these so-called conservatives carry on about reducing the size of government is by wanting to cut spending on programs they don't like. Now, if they were really reducing the size and influence of government, they'd be reducing its budget, too, because it would have less to do. But, on the contrary, the last three Republican presidents, who all claimed to be conservative, presided over massive increases in overall federal budget, accompanied by expansion of programs they liked.

So the OP's accusations of hypocrisy on this issue stand, even using military and police as an illustrative example.

Nitpicker. As employees of the government, they are paid for with tax dollars, and to the extent that government size, presence and intrusiveness is measured by its budget, a large military and large police forces is an indicator of bigger government.

Please keep in mind that the manner in which these so-called conservatives carry on about reducing the size of government is by wanting to cut spending on programs they don't like. Now, if they were really reducing the size and influence of government, they'd be reducing its budget, too, because it would have less to do. But, on the contrary, the last three Republican presidents, who all claimed to be conservative, presided over massive increases in overall federal budget, accompanied by expansion of programs they liked.

So the OP's accusations of hypocrisy on this issue stand, even using military and police as an illustrative example.

You'll tend to find that their pleas to decrease government size are almost always about the little people. The poor are just lazy economic drains who deserve to be poor and through the magic of hard work and free markets can and WILL achieve the American dream.:rolleyes: They're perfectly fine with socialism when it means inflating companies to a size greater than they could ever be naturally. "Small government" is a codename for "small government for small people."

You'll tend to find that their pleas to decrease government size are almost always about the little people. The poor are just lazy economic drains who deserve to be poor and through the magic of hard work and free markets can and WILL achieve the American dream.:rolleyes: They're perfectly fine with socialism when it means inflating companies to a size greater than they could ever be naturally. "Small government" is a codename for "small government for small people."
Please. Don't even get me started. I'll just try to sit back and let you run this thread, which you have started very ably, with some very good posts. I'm going to try to avoid launching into my usual war against the rightwing on the grounds that they are a bunch of wannabe aristocrats with neither breeding nor land who have wet dreams about making serfs of everyone else. Useless, moneygrubbing losers. /mini-rant.

Nitpicker.

have we met?

You'll tend to find that their pleas to decrease government size are almost always about the little people. T"

So would privatizing the government count as decreasing government?

have we met?
:tongue:

In a similar manner, even though certain business structures, like proprietorships, are completely the property of a single individual, that individual cannot use that business to do whatever he/she wishes, and since trivial corporate decisions have a more massive impact than trivial individual decisions, it only stands to reason that there be more regulation on corporations.
In other words, your problem is not with whether or not your decision causes harm to someone, but with the size of the decision's impact? How strange.

If I privately wanted to donate half my paycheck to feed poor people, that would presumably be okay with you, and you wouldn't feel the need to constrain or regulate my activity, right? But were I to own a company and do the same thing, and thus would donate more money to the same cause (thus having a more massive impact), you'd want to constrain and/or regulate me? I think the argument you'd have to make isn't that corporations could potentially cause greater harm to someone than an individual could, but that it would actually be more likely to do so. The former just calls for better enforcement, or maybe larger punishments - the latter would be needed to justify more or different regulations to those that apply to individuals.

For that matter, what do you really mean by "regulate"? A huge chunk of corporate and business law is purely a means to allow the efficient commerce between people or entities. Most of it is not meant to actually modify the behaviour of economic entities for political purposes, but rather for practical ones that allow people and businesses to generate some form of profit while minimising their costs. Those sorts of regulations aren't being questioned by anyone but the most hardcore anarcho-capitalists (and even they don't question the rules, but simply the means of enforcement).

But if you want to make regulations that aim to change the structure of an industry or the relationship between actors for political purposes, for example restrictions on hiring and firing, we're getting into a different kind of discussion. You're not trying to facilitate commercial interactions, you're trying to redesign such interactions to serve the goals of a particular person or group within society. And once you do that, you really are going to have to justify it with more than anything you have said in this thread so far. I'm not saying that you'd be wrong in wanting to support such laws - but what I am saying is that if you want to use the government in order to impose and enforce them, in other words use violence to force some to do your bidding for the benefit of yourself and others and to the detriment of themselves, then you want to be very clear about the reasons why you think such a horrible means (for however grand an end) is acceptable. And that has to be more than a fuzzy feeling of fairness, a philosophy that hasn't actually been stated in words and in full or just a general antipathy towards "the other side".

As for the rest of what you said, I agree with you. Most "small-government" people are anything but and were until recently a bigger threat to a good world than those on the Left.