Government: Small or Big?

In the U.S., the role of government is hotly contested between the left- and right-wing parties. The right tends to push for a smaller government, while the left usually results in a bigger government. How do you view the role of government, what services do you think the government should/shouldn't offer, what regulations do you think the government should/shouldn't be involved in, and do you think it's better when governments are smaller or larger?

(This is obviously not a U.S.-exclusive discussion - feel free to discuss small/big government in other countries as well!)

I'll give a more detailed response later, but for now I'll still put my thoughts out there. A smaller government almost always seems to result in a the government neglecting it's responsibilities to the people. Important agencies are lost or rendered moot, people in need get left without access to important services and meanwhile the wealthy benefit from less oversight and looser tax regulations.

Plus, there's this common misconception that a smaller government somehow means the government having less control over your life... but unless you're wealthy it's really not much different.

A large government sounds concerning to some people, and I fully understand why, but it brings with it greater oversight and a fairer management of services that benefits people of a lower socio-economic status. If you're in a democratic nation, you have nothing to fear from a larger government. At worst, you have nothing to lose and at best everything to gain.

"Small government" (incorrectly) assumes that corporations and various other groups (or even individuals) will always act in the best interest of the populace. But there's little reason to believe that they will if you ask me--humans are really not that good.

You obviously want to avoid going to the other extreme and have too "big" of a government either, lest you end up with an Orwell 1984 situation or some such.

I am generally more pro-small government, but I do believe big government can be useful on certain issues. I believe both extremes are just as bad.

For example, I subscribe laissez-faire economic theories with the exception of central banks, light regulation, and certain taxation. What I mean by light regulation is that there are rules on products, such as safety and health requirements. Ensure that there are no destructive monopolies, but keep the good ones (so basically vertical integration is fine, but not horizontal integration). Etc. I know I'm simplifying a lot, but you probably get the idea.

As for taxation, its more complicated. I dont believe the government's primary form of revenue should be from taxes on productivity, such as an income tax. Instead, taxes should focus on taxing negative externalities, such as carbon waste, alcohol, etc. Replace the property tax with a land value tax. Of course this wont cover all of the federal government's ventures, so there will have to be some taxes on productivity, but you get the idea.

I would like to see a large portion of tax money go towards actually good education so we dont have to spend as much on social welfare programs or prisons. +the long term yield would be a healthier economy, less crime, and more government revenue.

of course this is my "ideal vision." I wouldn't like to see social welfare programs done away with... its obvious they are very much needed until things improve and render them moot. I dont believe they are sustainable long term, but are effective enough in the short term. However, I am 100% behind affirmative action for housing. I believe housing is the solution for solving poverty.

Large, centralized governments who can effectively collect taxes are what long-lasting nations and states are founded on. People working together for large projects is what lets you have the infrastructure to be a modern, peaceful, wealthy country. That's my general take on things.

BadSheep said:

As for taxation, its more complicated. I dont believe the government's primary form of revenue should be from taxes on productivity, such as an income tax. Instead, taxes should focus on taxing negative externalities, such as carbon waste, alcohol, etc. Replace the property tax with a land value tax. Of course this wont cover all of the federal government's ventures, so there will have to be some taxes on productivity, but you get the idea.

Click to expand...

So if I understand you, you're saying taxes should be based on how much negative waste someone generates? As in, the more wasteful/harmful you are, as a business or person, the more you get taxed?

I think I'm with you on land value tax over property tax in a general sense (I think property taxes are just another hurdle for people struggling to own a home) but since I think one's general wealth should be the basis for how much they are taxed I'd worry about someone sinking their money into property in order to shelter it from taxes, like a tax haven in your own backyard.

Esper said:

Large, centralized governments who can effectively collect taxes are what long-lasting nations and states are founded on. People working together for large projects is what lets you have the infrastructure to be a modern, peaceful, wealthy country. That's my general take on things.



So if I understand you, you're saying taxes should be based on how much negative waste someone generates? As in, the more wasteful/harmful you are, as a business or person, the more you get taxed?

I think I'm with you on land value tax over property tax in a general sense (I think property taxes are just another hurdle for people struggling to own a home) but since I think one's general wealth should be the basis for how much they are taxed I'd worry about someone sinking their money into property in order to shelter it from taxes, like a tax haven in your own backyard.

Click to expand...

Basically, yes. I believe taxation on productivity is not ideal. If possible, taxation should rely more on waste, unproductively, and capital gained without productive labor. For example, pretend I own a property. Others begin moving around my property and suddenly my property becomes more valuable. It was the community that gave my property more valuable, so that money should return to the community (not all of it of course), so a land value tax is better. I agree- its definitely a hurdle that should be removed, and a land value tax would hurt low-income homeowners less than a property tax.

To further clear things up, Im not a fan of a capital gains tax because investment money goes towards productivity, so its alright even though investing is somewhat like gambling, which of course, I would be against because gambling is not good. Casinos should be taxed a lot imo

twocows said:

The government should be as small as possible while still being able to protect its citizens' rights, independence, and general well-being. I strongly disagree with the idea that we need an overly centralized government to accomplish those goals. I think that moving closer to a more decentralized form of government like a confederacy would allow for a much greater degree of self-governance, something which should be important in any democratic system. People should have more control over their own affairs, not less, and a strongly centralized government is antithetical to that goal. There should be some kind of central government, but its role should be extremely limited, concerned primarily with issues like military affairs, representing the states' interests abroad, and ensuring that citizens' basic human rights are not infringed upon.

Click to expand...

On human rights: what would you see the government's role in addressing inequity be? For example, how would a government be tasked to address poverty differently for People of Color and for white people? If that's not the government's job, how are the people of the country intended to address it?

Trev said:

On human rights: what would you see the government's role in addressing inequity be? For example, how would a government be tasked to address poverty differently for People of Color and for white people? If that's not the government's job, how are the people of the country intended to address it?

Click to expand...

How are you defining inequity? In terms of income? Political rights?

Basically, if the government did something wrong, I believe later governments are justified to fix it. For example, housing policy throughout the 20th century (since the New Deal with the creation of the Federal Housing Administration and Homeowner's Loan Corporation) has been largely racially biased. After WWII, white people were given preferential treatment in receiving homes at low interest rates, which over time, allowed them to build equity. Minorities on the other hand did not receive these opportunities and were instead placed in communities arbitrarily labelled as not being worth as much as the white peoples' homes. This is a major reason why there is a huge housing and wealth gap between minorities and whites. If a solution were to be left to a free market, de facto segregation would most likely continue because traditional customs and rules would be followed. Instead, its better for government to work towards increased integration, and as a result, minorities can "catch up" in the long-term.

So basically if the government screws up, its up to the government to fix it.

I have an entire essay on this topic if you would like it. I keep meaning to send it to other people lol

BadSheep said:

How are you defining inequity? In terms of income? Political rights?

Basically, if the government did something wrong, I believe later governments are justified to fix it. For example, housing policy throughout the 20th century (since the New Deal with the creation of the Federal Housing Administration and Homeowner's Loan Corporation) has been largely racially biased. After WWII, white people were given preferential treatment in receiving homes at low interest rates, which over time, allowed them to build equity. Minorities on the other hand did not receive these opportunities and were instead placed in communities arbitrarily labelled as not being worth as much as the white peoples' homes. This is a major reason why there is a huge housing and wealth gap between minorities and whites. If a solution were to be left to a free market, de facto segregation would most likely continue because traditional customs and rules would be followed. Instead, its better for government to work towards increased integration, and as a result, minorities can "catch up" in the long-term.

So basically if the government screws up, its up to the government to fix it.

I have an entire essay on this topic if you would like it. I keep meaning to send it to other people lol

Click to expand...

This is, essentially, what I believe should be the case. (And yes, do send me that essay, I'm sure it will be very helpful when I discuss this with others)

twocows said:

The central government should be responsible for ensuring a small set of basic human rights that a vast majority of people can agree on. Past that, I think that if there are significant issues with inequality, they should be handled at the local level. What works for Grand Rapids might not work for Detroit, and vice versa. Moreover, if there is a Grand Rapids problem, it should be handled by the people of Grand Rapids and the government they elected; likewise, if there is a Detroit problem, it should be handled by the people of Detroit and the government they elected.

Click to expand...

This is fair enough in your model of society that you've set up. The problem is, what ensures that local governments will take the action necessary to rectify that inequity? I assume you'll want to run with the democratic election model - in that case, how are we to assure that each state will vote in local governments that address such situations, and how can we be sure that said elected government will address the situation? From what I know about the current political climate, I can assure you that it'd probably be a far more vicious fight than it already is.

Poverty is poverty; I think if there's a poverty problem, then that should be addressed regardless of peoples' skin color. But I think it should be a local government issue unless there are basic human rights violations going on.

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right, it should be addressed without regards to race, but that assumes that there are equal numbers of poverty across all races. This isn't the truth - People of Color carry far more burden from poverty than white people (sources: 1 2 3), but it's often hard to reduce poverty for People of Color because their communities have been heavily segregated as a result of slavery and housing discrimination, to the point where the resources that would normally help lift people out of poverty (jobs, education) are often of poorer-quality than the resources for white people in poverty. Black mobility in society is low, but as we know from our current political climate, there's a lot more people who feel that a government addressing the specific problem of black poverty is discrimination against whites. So how can we ensure that all local governments would take the necessary steps to address the specific issue of black poverty or any pertinent, harmful minority issue when, in many places, it would be the larger majority population possibly making the decisions for smaller minority populations? Would you consider this specific situation "basic human rights" covered by the central government?

(Note that I'm not trying to turn this into a conversation about race or racial economic issues - I'm pitting your suggested government format against a real life situations so we can explore it further. This is by no means a conversation about race explicitly)

Trev said:

The problem is, what ensures that local governments will take the action necessary to rectify that inequity? I assume you'll want to run with the democratic election model - in that case, how are we to assure that each state will vote in local governments that address such situations, and how can we be sure that said elected government will address the situation?

Click to expand...

The people ensure it. Local governments aren't elected by the state, they're elected directly by the people of the locality. So for instance, Detroit's local government is elected by Detroit's people, not the people of Michigan; if they're not doing a good job, the people of Detroit would vote them out. Obviously there are special circumstances that might cause elected officials to be terminated early, such as criminal behavior or gross negligence, but generally speaking the people of the locality have the final say and if their elected officials aren't doing a good job, they can be replaced. This is why I think having a bottom-up structure of government is a good thing: the power starts with the people and powers are only delegated upward as necessary. It's much closer to the democratic ideal.

Yes, you're right, it should be addressed without regards to race, but that assumes that there are equal numbers of poverty across all races. ... So how can we ensure that all local governments would take the necessary steps to address the specific issue of black poverty or any pertinent, harmful minority issue when, in many places, it would be the larger majority population possibly making the decisions for smaller minority populations?

Click to expand...

A local government elected by the people of that locality will necessarily be made up of people from that locality who tend to support the popular sentiment on how to solve those issues. My personal take is that if poverty disproportionately affects a certain group of people, then when you put resources toward solving the issue, those resources are already going disproportionately toward that group of people. If they're of worse quality, then I think that's something that should be addressed directly, not indirectly by throwing more resources at the problem. However, in the system I support, the decision as to how to handle that would be left up to the people; if they think they have a better way to handle the issue, they'd be able to go down that path instead. My beliefs as to how the problem should be handled would be more or less irrelevant outside of where I live, which I think is how it should be, as each city has its own unique situation.

Would you consider this specific situation "basic human rights" covered by the central government?

Click to expand...

What I meant by that is making sure that local governments don't end up violating their citizens' rights. For instance, a local government might decide it has the right to set up cameras in your house and force you to live a certain way; the central government at that point can step in and say "no, this is a human rights violation, you're not allowed to do this." It's more about restricting the power of what local governments can do; as much as I like the idea of stronger local government, it's not perfect, which is why I still support the existence of a (smaller, weakened) central government.

twocows said:

The people ensure it. Local governments aren't elected by the state, they're elected directly by the people of the locality. So for instance, Detroit's local government is elected by Detroit's people, not the people of Michigan; if they're not doing a good job, the people of Detroit would vote them out. Obviously there are special circumstances that might cause elected officials to be terminated early, such as criminal behavior or gross negligence, but generally speaking the people of the locality have the final say and if their elected officials aren't doing a good job, they can be replaced. This is why I think having a bottom-up structure of government is a good thing: the power starts with the people and powers are only delegated upward as necessary. It's much closer to the democratic ideal.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about criminality. I'm talking about local governments not serving everyone, and whether or not the people of a locality would vote in politicians who do serve everyone. There are plenty of people who are content with voting for politicians that won't serve every group as long as they get their own issues addressed.

A local government elected by the people of that locality will necessarily be made up of people from that locality who tend to support the popular sentiment on how to solve those issues. My personal take is that if poverty disproportionately affects a certain group of people, then when you put resources toward solving the issue, those resources are already going disproportionately toward that group of people. If they're of worse quality, then I think that's something that should be addressed directly, not indirectly by throwing more resources at the problem. However, in the system I support, the decision as to how to handle that would be left up to the people; if they think they have a better way to handle the issue, they'd be able to go down that path instead. My beliefs as to how the problem should be handled would be more or less irrelevant outside of where I live, which I think is how it should be, as each city has its own unique situation.

Click to expand...

But again, that puts the power in the numeric majority, which is almost always the power majority as well. Are there ways to ensure that the majority keeps the interests of minorities in tact? Are we to assume that the overwhelming amount of the majority is going to want to make a situation better for the minority? I can tell you from personal experience and research that this isn't always the case.

What I meant by that is making sure that local governments don't end up violating their citizens' rights. For instance, a local government might decide it has the right to set up cameras in your house and force you to live a certain way; the central government at that point can step in and say "no, this is a human rights violation, you're not allowed to do this." It's more about restricting the power of what local governments can do; as much as I like the idea of stronger local government, it's not perfect, which is why I still support the existence of a (smaller, weakened) central government.

Click to expand...

Would this hypothetical central government not consider "escaping poverty" as a basic human right, for example? If the states/cities/etc. took no action to address the poverty issues in their state, would that be considered a violation of human rights?

Trev said:

I'm not talking about criminality. I'm talking about local governments not serving everyone, and whether or not the people of a locality would vote in politicians who do serve everyone. There are plenty of people who are content with voting for politicians that won't serve every group as long as they get their own issues addressed.

Click to expand...

I think making the locality smaller might help resolve some of that (so that there are fewer problems that only affect certain people in certain areas), and having some degree of direct democracy might help resolve more of it. Past a certain point, though, it's one of the limits of democracy: how do we protect the few from the many? I think one way might be to establish assemblies that advocate the interests of various people, but I don't know how that might end up looking or what kind of powers they should be allocated. It's a tough question and I won't claim to have a perfectly clean solution, but I think this is a problem that affects a centralized government just as much as a decentralized one.

Would this hypothetical central government not consider "escaping poverty" as a basic human right, for example? If the states/cities/etc. took no action to address the poverty issues in their state, would that be considered a violation of human rights?

Click to expand...

I guess that depends on what you mean by "escaping poverty." I don't believe that anyone is entitled to wealth, it's something they have to earn. However, if they don't even have the opportunity to do that, or if there are significant obstacles interfering with that, then I think that's a problem that the local government should and almost certainly will prioritize. Provided the locality's small enough, the government will be people from the affected community, elected by people from the affected community to deal with exactly those kinds of problems. Maybe some degree of oversight can be delegated upward, but the responsibility should ultimately rest with the local government for these kinds of issues.

If you mean basic living conditions like access to food, water, shelter, etc., then I think those things fall under the right to life, which I consider a basic human right. As such, access to those for those who can't afford them should be mandated by the federal government and provided by the local government. If the local government is unable to provide access, then the responsibility falls first to the regional government; if the regional government is unable to provide access, then the responsibility falls next to the central government. I think cases where it would get that far would be pretty rare, though.