Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

I think the bottom line here is that Nadaka's idea of conservatism does not necessarily line up with what is considered conservatism by most of the rest of us.

But I think it does line up with what passes for "Conservatism" in the rhetorical sense that's thrown around in this country today. There's little distinction given between fiscal and social conservatism in those circles.

We have a term for people who are fiscal conservatives without the social conservative coalignment...they're called libertarians. The vast majority of self-identified conservatives in the US have adopted the big-C Conservative platform, which runs from tax cuts to anti-gay marriage. They may not agree on EVERY plank in the platform, but overall they're socially conservative as well. Likewise, most social conservatives adopt the fiscal conservative position as well (although I suspect many of them would not object to massive government spending to enforce their particular social cause).

[GlyphGryph]

Yeah, I prefer my dead animals to be useful. Killing them unnecessarily, either for either sport or scripture, is cruelty. Just as how awesomely fun and exciting hunting is doesn't make it less cruel, being awesomely soul saving doesn't either.

Spoiler: Should probably be in its own thread, terrible tangent (click to show/hide)

Yes, dead animals are a-ok if you get the enjoyment you prefer out of them, but not if other people get the enjoyment they prefer out of them. (hypocrite hypocrite hypocrite)

More on topic, and related to the Nadaka thing - we need to fuckin' chill on the rhetoric.

The politicians may only be in it for themselves, but the people who support them genuinely believe they are doing the right thing. This is not a war, it's a goddamned country. You can not abritrarily kill off the other half of the population, no matter how much you want to. We need to work together, and casting them as "the enemy" is only going to make them cling tighter to beliefs you put forward as mistaken.

Basically, we all need to learn to discuss things from the axioms the other person holds, or discuss those axioms, otherwise all we'll ever accomplish is butting heads... which will get us into exactly the mess we've got now.

[Bauglir]

I just wanna be clear, even I don't think Nadaka's ventured anywhere banworthy. Or even muteworthy. It's just an issue of having an argument vs having a fight.

[Sheb]

So massive re-railing.

What exactly does "Small Government" even mean? Is it less money going through the government, less power for government officials, less regulations? I really feel that it's just another buzzword in american politics,[troll] like constitution or freedom[/troll].

[GlyphGryph]

From a libertarian perspective, "small government" is a government with a limited number of roles, which it should, hypothetically, handle very efficiently. It should not be confused with a weak government, though the libertarians leaning anarchist will sometimes argue for that. The basis of most libertarian thought requires a government that is both strong and effective, but only at those things that we need the government to do - Like provide national security, enforce laws, and protect rights.

I can't speak for the average conservative, as I never had a period passing through average conservative thought.

[Sheb]

Okay, but then why would a small government be that much more effective? And also, when did it became popular wisdom that government is inefficient, or rather, less efficient than the alternative?

[GlyphGryph]

Common wisdom is that it is sometimes less efficient, because the government will not be replaced if it is failing. Most believe the government is more efficient, or at least more effective, at the things I mentioned above.

Many libertarians I've met are also supporters of regulations insuring corporations do not get so large that they end up in the same situation, though I can't say how widespread that belief is. The belief that government is less efficient than the free market is generally been proven true - but the markets are not always free, and government intervention is not the only thing that can distort or eliminate it - again, most libertarians I know believe one of the duties of the government is to protect the free market from unscrupulous actors and distortions, though again I'm not sure how widely that belief holds.

I'm not sure what you mean by the question of how a small government would be more effective.

[Sheb]

Well, governments can do some things the market can't. Take the very long view, borrow at really low-rate to make long-term investment. The liberalisation of energy market for exemple didn't went that well in Europe.

Also, you seemed to imply a small government would be more efficient. Well, why so? It would still be too large for efficient monitorin by the electorate.

[GlyphGryph]

I simply meant that most libertarians would prefer a government with limited and clear duties. This would obviously be more efficient at whatever duties it set out to accomplish than a government with vague responsibilities and significant creep, but it more a property of clearly defined governments than small governments. The other efficiency bonuses would come in the areas the government is no longer involved in (except to insure the market remains free).

One of the fundamental principles one should keep in mind when thinking about government is that, in many ways, we literally have no fucking clue what we're doing, what will work, and what won't. Free market forces, with numerous small and innovative companies competing for the right solution, are often an effective way to accomplish without risk to the general population or the focused structure of the government - they can take avenues governmental inertia would rarely allow. This is, again, why many libertarians are similarly opposed to large companies that dominate the landscape, as you lose most of the benefits of the free market when this occurs.

The libertarian view heavily favours governments not doing things simply because they are able, and not doing things that restrict freedom unnecessarily, and not interfering with functioning free markets. Most agree with large scale infrastructure being a valid government area of control, since it's outside the reach of a free market - the distortion would be to heavy to make the market effective. They also usually believe this should be handled by the smallest level of government capable of handling - that towns should handle their own town infrastructure without the help of the state or federal government, except in areas where only the state of federal government can handle the task. (We wouldn't build a highway piecemeal, funded by every area it runs through, for example)

This part isn't so much about efficiency as another important libertarian belief about small government:

The people actually involved in a situation are those best suited to deciding it. Women seeking or having experienced abortions, for example, would be the goto people when considering regulations and rules regarding the procedure, and it would be better handled at a state level as the expectations, beliefs, and acceptable risks may vary depending on the group of people you ask. They believe that despite our similarities, people are different, and one-size-fits-all solutions will be actively harmful to the groups the solution does not fit.

Obviously, this can not be completely avoided, but it should be minimized with an emphasis on local government - each level should only handle the tasks the level below can not handle efficiently, to insure solutions are tailored as closely to the relevant problems as possible. So they also believe in small government in that respect.

[Sheb]

Okay, I may not agree with the view you expressed, but they at least make sense.

[RedKing]

I think in some cases it's not even about efficiency as much as "can be trusted to serve the public interest".

16-century Italian city-states provide a good example of why you don't want to rely on private sector military forces for protection, for instance.
Likewise, law enforcement and the judiciary need to be public sector to avoid some serious problems with conflict of interest (although certainly it can be argued that having the government handle this just creates a different kind of conflict of interest).

Now I would argue that there is also a big role for government in sponsoring those "Big Idea" programs which benefit society tremendously in the long-term but which cannot be done profitably in the short-term. If we'd relied on the public sector to run the space program in the 50's and 60's, we'd never have gone to the Moon. We'd never have invented the atom bomb (which could be a good or bad thing, depending on your point of view). We'd wouldn't have developed the Internet, at least not in anything resembling its current form. Albeit, that's my view not the libertarian one.

[GlyphGryph]

I should add that a lot of people misconstrue the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism as well - for example, the concept of the negative income tax, which is a rather extreme form of wealth distribution, was proposed by and is still widely supported by a number of libertarians, in the belief than unlike unconstrained capitalism or a welfare state, it would maximize the freedom available to a state's citizens. Many people confuse libertarians for the "no taxes ever its all theft folks", but while there might some overlap (just like there's overlap between democrats and people who believe all men should be subjugated), it's certainly not a tenant of general libertarian philosophy.

[Strife26]

I'd say that a lot of people misconstrue the philosophical  underpinnings of just about every sort of political movement.


In general, I think that there's a lot of value in a lot of the Libertarian ideals, but I'm fairly sure that there's no real way to embrace them properly while still maintaining a proper balance of force on the world stage, much less the monopoly of force I generally think we should have.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The problem with a monopoly of force in any field is that it can't be stopped, even by the people inside of it, if something goes wrong. With the military, something going wrong can have rather extreme consequences.

[Josephus]

The problem with a monopoly of force in any field is that it can't be stopped, even by the people inside of it, if something goes wrong.

I think Strife is referring to the monopoly of violence, dude. The precise thing that any state requires to even function as a proper state.