News & Politics

Rant

The Benefits of Small Government Myth

Posted 12 months ago|23 comments|750 views
Written by
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
For two campaign cycles, Neo-conservatives, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, and right-wing Republicans have preached SMALL GOVERNMENT to the people. They've attributed big government to the enormous deficit, therefore small government is the answer. They've claimed government services do nothing but create a nanny state of entitled citizens who expect the government to constantly come to their aid, therefore small government and reduced services is the answer. They've argued small government creates jobs, provides better health care, protects the lives of the unborn, sanctifies same-gender marriage, lowers gas prices, protects people's right to carry guns, and a whole host of other brilliant sound bites readily available in any average Sarah Palin speech. Unfortunately, their arguments and ideas arise from the depths of faulty mythology and the keystone events of the week prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Prior to visiting the aforementioned events, take a look at life on earth for just a moment. On earth, there are two basic forms of life at the root level. There are unicellular life forms: all of the bacteria, many of the protists (amoebas, ciliates, sporozoans, golden algae, euglenazoans, water molds, etc.), and many forms of algae. Then there are the multicellular life forms: true plants, animals, and fungi. Both strategies of life exist in harmony on the planet. There are strengths and weaknesses to both. The biggest weakness to the unicellular strategy is that the only way the organism can become more sophisticated is to evolve internal structures to take on specialized jobs. This is the primary reason we do not see incredibly advanced organismal behavior from amoebas. At some point in time, when cells started living in clusters or colonies, specialization of cells became possible. One group in the cluster could depend on another for certain things and vice-versa. Trading of resources became possible.

The individual cells in the large organism each on its own would be powerless to survive but working together in the larger organism created something far more capable of survival. Interestingly enough, the prevailing hypotheses for the success of human civilization promote the notion that it was the coming together in city-states by human beings that allowed certain civilizations to advance well beyond their counterparts of wandering hunter gatherers. Just as in the case of a multicellular organism where cells evolve to become specialized to accomplish only a small number of tasks exceptionally well, a city group of people also succeeds better, longer, more efficiently, and more effectively with the specialization of the people to be excellent at a small number of jobs. A single family living out on the prairie, growing its own food, raising its own cattle, and surviving the elements cannot achieve the same things as a group of families all sharing the various burdens and utilizing their expertise to share the results of their labors in a fruitful and beneficial exchange. What allows for the extraordinary function of a multicellular organism is a central nervous system the most advanced of which we know on the face of the earth is that of the human brain. This amazing control structure coordinates nearly every aspect of the function of the entire body of cells in a human being. Likewise, it is the central government of a highly complex civilization of human beings that coordinates all functions of that civilization. Nobody would ever say that a smaller brain makes for a better human being, or would they? This is an interesting sidebar comment, but when the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs bash the educated folks in our nation, are they, in effect, subscribing to this philosophy?

Nobody would ever say that a smaller brain makes for a better human being, or would they?

In the past week, tornados on a heretofore nearly untold level bombarded the southeastern United States, fired raged across the entire state of Texas, flooding of the nation's most vital river caused chaos throughout the midwest, and then a small team of highly trained military operatives located and killed the most wanted man on earth, Osama Bin Laden. What do all of these things have in common? First and foremost, they serve as examples of the importance of big government. A nation of states with huge brains coordinating the local, state, and national resources is far better equipped and trained to deal with any and all threats. The collective pool of talent can be distributed. Individuals can be highly trained for incredibly specific operations. Ironically, the very same people, Texas Governor Rick Perry comes to mind, who were preaching a year ago about the horrors of big government was bashing the nation and the President for not sending him sufficient aid to combat the fires – an irony that was not lost on the hundreds of average citizens who commented on line on the CNN story. One thing is for certain, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot want the benefits of a large, organized civilization but want to live in your little house on the prairie. You cannot revile taxes, but think you should get your unemployment, your social security, and your government assistance when you lose your job, retire after the risky stock market has wiped out your pension, and you get paralyzed in a car accident.

There are pluses and minuses to unicellular versus multicellular life to be sure. To this date, an amoeba has never been able to send aid to a grief stricken cousin three petrie dishes away. It's time to stop bashing big government and, instead, bash the greed and waste that fuel the excesses that ruin the benefits of big government.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Some people like the idea of a "central government... that coordinates all functions of that civilization." Some people don't.

The difference in your analogies is that within a single organism, all the cells are working together, with the exception of certain cancers. In a civilization of humans, you have millions of separate organisms, each with their own ideas.

But you are right about one thing. When humans started to group together, we accomplished much in a short amount of time. It only took us 6000 years to overpopulate and nearly destroy the only life supporting planet that we know of.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: It's not so much just the coordination, it's the power of pooling your resources. Our nation of 50 states can do so much more in the area of research than say Europe as 20 separate countries. Hence, why they wanted to try to found the European Union.

You are certainly, however, very correct in your last paragraph. Although, we have the capacity to live in perfect harmony with our beautiful planet. We can do so much more efficiently and effectively in cities with shared resources, however, than spread out.
12 months ago: Haha. Wow. You really believe this stuff? I've got a suggested reading list for you if you do.

Have you ever read 'Tragedy and Hope'?

Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: I have not, but I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I want to be careful in my response to my own rant by saying that I was in no way meaning to imply that if bad people are in charge of a giant government that's a good thing. I am a firm believer that, at least in the case of the United States of America, our founders wanted citizens to have a say and to be involved. They came up with this antiquated system of representatives to solve the issues of hot to get the opinions of everyone in a time that pre-dated even the telegraph. So, I am a big fan of putting the power back in the hands of the people, but I also believe a strong central government is the superior way to go – noth that I might not be persuaded to think differently.
12 months ago: Fair enough Coloranter. Let me just say that when most people talk about "smaller government" they are referring to the reduction, or elimination, of oversized, and usually completely unnecessary, bureaucratic agencies a.k.a. perma-government. These agencies continue to grow with their ever-increasing budgets, and their employees who are not elected and usually keep their job for life. This is not how "democracy" is supposed to work, and it's certainly not how our "constitutional republic" is supposed to work.

Furthermore, many people are still under the false impression that the Federal Reserve is a legitimate "government" institution, when in fact they are the criminal private bank that basically runs this government. We'll never be able to trust our "big government" as long as they have the international banking mafia running our economy.

I could really go on for days, but for brevity let me conclude this comment by mentioning that Bin Laden has been dead for 10 years :)
sunny2
sunny2
12 months ago: Everything said here seems to greatly make sense.
I'm waiting for everything to be on an autonomic system that will function without our awareness of control over everything and that would be a nightmare and that is where bad people would have an opening to come in. They will call it the "Government of the Future." "No say over anything at all, Coloranter." Maybe thats the next step over our antequated system of representatives as you mentioned. I hope that won't be the way a strong centralized Government will be formed as I can't see power given back to the people as our founders wanted it to be. It wasn't perfect, but it worked.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
12 months ago: I like the analogy of the central government being like the central nervous system in our bodies directing all of the billions of cells for the good of all.

Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: What I am really trying, apparently rather badly to get at, is that we need an excellent and functioning central government to be the nation we strive to be. We need to pool our resources and brain power as a nation to be competitive in the future. Do the Chinese have small government? No. And yet, they are close to rivaling us. It really isn't about how big or small the government is, it's about what it does and how. Auto and Sunny both make good points especially about the Federal Reserve Bank and the countless non-elected officials and staffs. I just think that it's time to stop oversimplifying everything down to convenient soundbites and rhetoric. The world is immensely complex with thousands upon thousands of systems all interacting. It's easy to say, "Oh, just eliminate the government, toss it out, eliminate all the corruption and the career politicians, but it's not that simple. We need bold leaders who understand the complexity and are working on our behalf to see the forest for the trees.
sunny2
sunny2
12 months ago: I agree with you. By the way I like the nervous system analogy. Sometimes I know you have to go round and round with this. It is immensely complex. I know we can't toss out Government. I get mad at the blaming one side of it for all the problems. Then I say get rid of the whole thing if they don't like it..
It's true we need "Bold leaders" who understand and nothing should fall short of it. I don't see that character in anyone that is out there.
Boy, this Country has changed.
12 months ago: Coloranter I agree. I think if the people of every city, county, and state in this country applied your ideas to their own city, county, and state governments then this country's problems would start turning around tomorrow.

For instance, if every state in the union were to adopt a banking system like North Dakota's and the Treasury would start doing its job by issuing the national currency (instead of letting foreign criminal banks lend them the money, at interest), and the people would get active in their local communities, then this country's sad state of affairs would immediately reverse, and the U.S. would again become the envy of the world.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Bravo!
sunny2
sunny2
12 months ago: Maybe the size of Government should be something in between too big or small.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Bravo!
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: The best government is that which governs least. The smallest government capable of safeguarding our liberties is the largest one we need.

Remember. any government capable of giving you every thing you want is capable of taking away everything you have. That is the very antithesis of the purpose for which Jefferson wrote that governments are instituted.

Bigger government equals smaller individuals. Bigger individuals equals smaller government. C O, in your analogy, people become like individual cells in a multicellular organism. In doing so they cease to be individuals and become mere cogs in a vast machine. Is that how YOU wish to live your life? Just a number?

If you truly believe such a system works, then tell me why the Soviet Union fell? Tell me why Cuba is failing.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: You can think of it as cogs in a machine, or you can think of it as specialists who can concern themselves with doing the best job at their small slice of the action. A cell in your liver need not worry about making its own food. So, if you're a briliant teacher, you can teach kids and not worry about defending the nation against outside threats.

When it comes to spending, would you rather pay tax for firefighters or be told, your house burned down, now you owe us $42,000?

Without 'big government' who is it that funds the Space missions and development that led to thousands of new technologies all of which are now licensed and making companies millions.

Without 'big government' who is that funds all the research that are now the cures for diseases and medications licensed to private industry.

In both of these cases, you can sit back and hope the private sector would do it all on its own, but they cannot command the same capital resources as a nation. Nor can they operate without a mission of profits that drive decisions – go watch Alien.

I don't agree that bigger governments mean smaller individuals at all. I do agree that the government is only as good as the people in it, and I think this is where we have fallen down. A government has evolved that depends on rich candidates or candidates that can raise a lot of money.

Instead of having Donald Trump run for the office, I would have and could have supported instead, putting him in charge of creating a reality show, the winners of which would become the candidates for the GOP, Dems, and so on.

This has inspired in me a new post. I think I'll call it, a Novel New Approach for the Selection of Leaders. You can read it soon, here on RantRave.com.

Finally, why did USSR fall and Cuba? Well, there are a lot of reasons, but nothing to do with large or small government, in my opinion. You could argue USSR fell because it couldn't deliver services - which may or may not have to do with the size of the gov't.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: Oh, and I don't recall anyone saying small governments create jobs. Governments do not create jobs because they are essentially parasitic in nature. While the parasite does contribute some positive benefits, it is still a parasite. Government's sole function in the economy is to siphon off as little of the nation's vitality as possible and get out of the way. Neither do governments create wealth. Only individuals do that. When government taxes those who create the wealth and regulations reduce the opportunities for wealth to be created, the economy cannot but suffer.

Government is like the Doctors of Washington's time. They bled people because they believed illness was caused by bad blood. If the doctors limite their treatments the patient survived their ministrations. If memory serves, Washing was "cared for" by the physicians until they bled him to death.

Government can do that to an economy. In point of fact they just about have.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
12 months ago: So when the government that you support "bleeds" off the poor what do you suggest they do with the money? Give it to the rich or use it to take care of the people???? I vote for the latter.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: How about they just keep their grubby hands to themselves? It ain't supposed "us" people and "them" government. We are supposed to be the government, and be self governing. Instead of "bleeding off the poor" and having to decide what to do with the money, they should just leave the money where it belongs.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Governments do not create jobs?

When the city and county of Denver decided to build Denver International Airport, they created 5,000 construction jobs. They used no tax payer money. They used investor funded bonds, all of which, to my knowledge, have been paid off earning those investors a tidy sum. Those dollars spent have now created the most successful airport in USA history and the single biggest economic engine in the state of Colorado employing tens of thousands directly and indirectly. So, yes, governments do indeed create jobs. There is nothing parasitic about this.

The federal government built the nation's interstate highway system which revolutionized the nation's ability to move goods and services around. It's purpose was to make it possible to move troops during wartime, but it has gone on to become one of the nation's most important assets –– though badly deteriorating as we speak. The construction created millions of jobs and it's legacy created millions of private sector jobs.

I hope you will agree that building something of this magnitude required cooperation of all state governments and the pooling of the nation's assets.

I am not saying at all that run amok wasteful government is good, I'm just saying you are greatly over-simplifying the role of government and its harms while completely neglecting its benefits.

Your entirely anti-tax position has been fueled by a loathing for watching your money be spent foolishly, I suspect, and I don't disagree. I don't like to see my money spent foolishly. Ironically, however, my take on what's foolish is something upon which we might not agree. I think it's foolish to build a border fence and spend money keep immigrants out of the USA. Instead, I say we eliminate minimum wages and allow market demand to control them instead. If there are immigrants willing to work for $2 an hour and do the same job as locals who want $7.53, let me hire them.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Eliminate the minimum wage? Let the undocumented come over and work for 1/3 pay? I'm sure there are millions of Chinese, well educated and fluent, ready to come and take all our jobs, and willing to do it for $150.00/week.

Our central government was intended to be the net sum of all our states, working together to provide the best life possible for the people therein. It was not intended to be an authoritarian separate entity.
sunny2
sunny2
Content Removed by sunny2
sunny2
sunny2
Content Removed by sunny2
sunny2
sunny2
12 months ago: Coloranter you had written, "I say we eliminate minimum wages and allow market demand to control them instead. If there are immigrants willing to work for $2 an hour and do the same job as locals who want $7.53, let me hire them."
Don't you think that can run our country down and cause more problems with people and more prejudice and discrimination? It can run rampant and puts people against each other even more so.
Americans reach for the gold ring in life and that is what keeps us on the Board at full steam.
Many people don't think like us and resent us because they haven't had the opportunities. If they make very low wages that can bring about a lot of problems.
I know of people from other areas of our State from other Countries at this time working at minimum wage because they don't have the education and can't speak the language, so it becomes an obstacle for them to accept. They may resent the person working in the office holding responsibility and will do everything in their power to make that person uncomfortable. Many are too busy thinking what they don't have and measure a lot by material things, so they resent others for working hard who see longevity and work to achieve. Many think having a car is their answer. Tthey hate you if you have one. Usually, they stay together in their own group and will not interact with anyone else.. They will do everything in their power to make you feel that you don't fit in, and yet this one person is making the company flourish and keeping them working. They won't get it and don't want to. Not everyone I'm sure is like that but most attitudes such as this exist in the work place with low wages for minorities. They never feel worthy.
I wouldn't think low wages is fair for them either or a solution to our problems. If you do a good job, you should get paid for it.
You would think our Country would know how to deal with this.
sunny2
sunny2
12 months ago: Coloranter by the way I love Colorado. I've been visiting the Rocky Mountains for many years, and I love the preservation of the land and the sciences. Many people there are helping to support individual children through a program to help the kids in need. I find them very generous and responsive, more so, than other areas.
What everyone has said makes a lot of sense. I am hoping something will change.
It brings to mind an incident that happened pointing out that people are impossible to unify at times. They tend to live in their own World.
I had to telephone someone, and this person lived in a Southern State, he asked me where I was calling from, and I politely told him
His immediate emotional response was, "I don't speak to you... NJ that is an alien place to me." "You're too far away." "Where is that anyway." He said I came from an alien State several times and hung up. He honestly believed what he was saying and that he shouldn't speak to people far away from him. He repeated it again and with that said, he would not speak to me. He felt I was from an alien State disconnected from where he lived and would have no part of any conversation.
I feel that division of people's attitudes many of the places I visit just from coming from another state and traveling through. Government can do a lot more to bring people together and unify people just by showing interest. With the Government status as it is, people come last in these times. Probably it is a pipe dream, but one has to hope for that unification of people for our Country to be successful. We all have different opinions and beliefs which is only right, but for the Country, we should be united. I don't know if people realize how important it is to be a team and how much is at stake if something isn't done soon and we lose everything. People tend to concentrate only on misconstrued beliefs and some are totally unaware of what is going on. It is as if nothing ever was settled throughout the years with all the grudges that are carried from State to State.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: The whole problem with your thesis, CR, is that no one of whom I am aware is actually arguing in favor of SMALL government. SMALLER government, most definitely, but not small government per se.

The real aim of the Tea Party and others is not SMALL government, but LIMITED government.

The Constitution was written to limit the POWER and SCOPE of the Federal Government, not its SIZE. The constitution was written to act as a fence around the proper domain of the Federal Government to keep the government IN its proper place and OUT OF places it should not rightly go.

That principle of limited government is articulated and codified in the 10th amendment.
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.

The proposition is quite simple. The Federal Government has no power except what was explicitly delegated to/authorized it in the Constitution. Unless a power is delegated to the Federal Government, it is reserved to the individual States or to the people.

So the real dichotomy is not BIG government vs SMALL but LIMITED government vs UNLIMITED.

So far as SIZE of government goes, it should only be of sufficient size to carry out its role as set forth in the Declaration of Independence; namely to secure the Creator-endowed rights of the governed.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.