The Bigger the Government…the Smaller the citizen.

[Dans La Lune]

More close to home, did everyone in the USA support the "power change" in either 2016 or 2020?

It is idealistic to believe that the power of government "comes from us."

Where does it from? Government isn't a great fiery eyeball hovering in space.

Here's the rub for anti-government types: There is literally no alternative to government and there never will be. So the best thing to do is make the government effective and representative of the people. Putting an ideological limit on the size of government isn't a solution when the problems facing society are far greater than they've ever been, and those problems require millions of people working together to even have a chance at solving.

How do you solve climate change without government intervention? How do you maintain modern civilization without government? The free market isn't a thing, much less an alternative.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Do you agree with the idea that the bigger the Government, the smaller each citizen becomes?

I am not the originator of this point, although I have recognized it most of my life. But I am curious as to how my peers might think. The following is the argument:

The premise is that everything gets smaller as the government gets bigger. Including:

• Liberty
• Individuality
• Goodness
• Human Character

That this is both an observable fact and just plain common sense.

We can all recognize that Government does have a certain value when it:

Protects us from foreign attacks, and criminals in our own country; addresses natural and man-made disasters; and when all else fails, acts as a safety net of last resort.

BUT, it must always be of LAST resort; because when government is looked to as the FIRST resort, then individual responsibility tends to diminish.

First to go is Goodness. As people look more and more to government for help, individuals ask themselves "why help others when the government can do it for you?"

Next to go is Human Character. Relying on others to take care of you when you are capable of taking care of yourself is both selfish and the definition of irresponsible. Moreover, in relying on other’s in the form of State largess paid for via taxation creates a sense of ENTITLEMENT. This is soon followed by feelings of ingratitude and resentment at any attempts to modify or limit such largesse.

Then goes Liberty. The more government, the more rules. The more rules, the less liberty. U.S. example: the Federal Register which started out with 2,620 pages of rules in 1936 now has well over 87,000 pages currently. Microsoft Word - fed-reg-pages (llsdc.org)

Finally, when goodness, human character, and liberty dissipate, sacrificed to the power of government and the Collective, we ultimately lose our Individuality…becoming mere cogs in the machine of all pervasive government control.

In my opinion, the old saying "The best government is that which governs least" is how we should all look at centralized power and any desire to expand such power.

So, to the poll question: Do you agree that the bigger the Government, the smaller the individual citizen becomes in every way?

Yes

No

Other.

A nation is an organization of humans, just like a corporation, a 501(c), a union, or a book club. A government is like a board of directors, selected according to the organization's charter. In many such organizations, including the majority of nations, some positions will be elected by members/shareholders and others will be assigned by those in elected positions. The notion of government as being somehow distinct from any other organization of humans with regard to the morality of its hierarchy is an arbitrary conceit.

The question of whether a larger government equates to a smaller citizen is really a question of whether a larger leadership body for an organization of humans equates to a smaller member of the organization.

Insofar as property rights for organizations are recognized at all, U.S. territory is certainly the sovereign property of the United States. Those who want to live and do business on our property will have to abide by our terms of service, and pay the agreed rate. There are many terms for payments to an organization. A union might call them dues. An apartment might call them rent. A taxi service might call them fares. Nations typically call them taxes. By any other name, it all amounts to compensation for goods and services rendered. Nations provide many services such as military protection, use of infrastructure, healthcare, consumer protections, etc. In exchange, they charge taxes. Those who don't think that living or doing business in a particular nation is worth the price can expatriate or move their business elsewhere. That's just the free market at work.

The fact of the matter is that we already live in an ideal anarcho-capitalist paradise. Anarchy is what we started with, and our current state is the natural progression of laissez-faire capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists just don't like how large and powerful some organizations have become. They think there needs to be some kind of regulation of the free market to prevent organizations like the US from becoming too big and powerful. But who is going to enforce that kind of regulation? A supergovernment to govern the governments?

 

[aociswundumho]

The exchange is this: You give the government money, and in return, the government provides services for you.

That sounds like it makes sense until you think about it for more than five seconds.

1. How much money do I have to give the government? The money I earn comes from my labor, so being force to give money to the government is forcing me to give part of my life to the government.

2. What do I get in return? I don't want to pay for bombing brown people in foreign countries, yet that is one of the "services" government provides for me and forces me to pay for.

3. What are the incentives facing the politicians who get to spend my money? Do they have an incentive to serve people like me, or to serve the special interest group which just made a substantial donation to his re election campaign?

These are just a few of the reasons why your statement is, in the parlance of our times, "problematic".

If we didn't have the programs I listed, we would live in a less free society.

Good grief.

 

[aociswundumho]

Regarding the power of government:

Where does it from? Government isn't a great fiery eyeball hovering in space.

It comes from the threat of force and violence. Obey or go to jail. Pay up or go to jail.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"-- small government advocate Chairman Mao

Here's the rub for anti-government types: There is literally no alternative to government and there never will be.

I'll be doing a post soon on charter cities.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

If federal spending was paid for by taxation we wouldn’t have consistent annual federal “budget” deficits or growing national debt.

Rest assured that an insurance company routinely paying out more in claims than it receives in premiums would not last long.

Insurance companies routinely increase their debt burden. Lots of businesses do in fact. Debt is generally a good idea when you are investing it well.

If you can borrow $100,000 at 2% APR and invest it for a reliable 4% return, that is a pretty good deal. As your wealth increases, rather than whittling down your debt, it makes sense to borrow even more, as you can afford to borrow more without becoming over-leveraged. Borrowing $200,000 at 2% APR and investing it for a reliable 4% return will make money twice as fast.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Insurance companies routinely increase their debt burden. Lots of businesses do in fact. Debt is generally a good idea when you are investing it well.

If you can borrow $100,000 at 2% APR and invest it for a reliable 4% return, that is a pretty good deal. As your wealth increases, rather than whittling down your debt, it makes sense to borrow even more, as you can afford to borrow more without becoming over-leveraged. Borrowing $200,000 at 2% APR and investing it for a reliable 4% return will make money twice as fast.

That seems wonderful, yet why would someone lend to someone else at 2% when they could be the one investing at 4%?

 

[aociswundumho]

If you can borrow $100,000 at 2% APR and invest it for a reliable 4% return, that is a pretty good deal.

Is this suppose to be analogous to federal spending?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Is this suppose to be analogous to federal spending?

Nope, the government can borrow, never pay it back and force others to cover the interest.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

That seems wonderful, yet why would someone lend to someone else at 2% when they could be the one investing at 4%?

Because they know about assessing lending risks and don't know how to assess the investment risk for whatever that investment is? Because they like to diversify their portfolio? The 4% return will generally be a higher risk investment than the 2%, or one that requires some work, or one that the lender wouldn't have access to or knowledge of.

It isn't some weird theoretical thing that I made up. Margin is a real thing. Leverage is a real thing. Corporate debt is a real thing. Brokerage accounts generally offer margin trading for exactly this purpose. Business loans exist for exactly this purpose.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Regarding the power of government:

It comes from the threat of force and violence. Obey or go to jail. Pay up or go to jail.

Would you rather the monopoly of force be accountable to the people, in a representative democracy, or simply be whoever has the biggest private army (e.g. feudalism)?

I'll be doing a post soon on charter cities.

You'll never escape government unless you divorce yourself from society entirely.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Is this suppose to be analogous to federal spending?

It is in general, though of course the exact figures of 2% and 4% were arbitrary. The government borrows money to provide services to US citizens. Those services make the US a popular place. They do a pretty good job of keeping their existing members and are getting new members all the time. As a result, US revenue has been continuously increasing, and so it can afford to borrow more money to provide more services.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Nope, the government can borrow, never pay it back and force others to cover the interest.

I've never had any issue with the government paying me back. The US government has a AAA investment-grade rating.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Yes, we get to choose from a list of candidates, who will govern us. Period. Our involvement then comes to an end until the next election.

Well, yes. We have our own work to do.

 

[Individual]

??????????????????? No-----we choose who the candidates will be. Didn't you ever petition for a candidate??? Let me know when you do, then we can debate a bit....

I did work in Jimmy Carters initial campaign for President, but as a result ended up voting for his opposition, though he did get elected for one term.
The choices we are provided are very limited, and at most we are left only to pick the least worst. Believe otherwise if it makes you feel better.

 

[joko104]

This poll confirms again the USA and its citizens now is almost entirely antithetical to what those who fought in the Revolutionary war, the Founding Fathers and nearly all Americans wanted and thought they had created.

The concept that the bigger the government is, the freer people are is exactly what they opposed.

 

[joko104]

I did work in Jimmy Carters initial campaign for President, but as a result ended up voting for his opposition, though he did get elected for one term.
The choices we are provided are very limited, and at most we are left only to pick the least worst. Believe otherwise if it makes you feel better.

Carter always seemed like a good, but naive, man.

 

[BrotherFease]

That sounds like it makes sense until you think about it for more than five seconds.

1. How much money do I have to give the government? The money I earn comes from my labor, so being force to give money to the government is forcing me to give part of my life to the government.

2. What do I get in return? I don't want to pay for bombing brown people in foreign countries, yet that is one of the "services" government provides for me and forces me to pay for.

3. What are the incentives facing the politicians who get to spend my money? Do they have an incentive to serve people like me, or to serve the special interest group which just made a substantial donation to his re election campaign?

These are just a few of the reasons why your statement is, in the parlance of our times, "problematic".



Good grief.

I just explained how taxes worked. Pretty much everybody understands this concept, except maybe libertarians. It's called the Social Contract for being an American Citizen.

What is your alternative? Put coin/cash/credit card meters everywhere? Do you honestly want to live in a Ron Swanson world?

 

[Dans La Lune]

This poll confirms again the USA and its citizens now is almost entirely antithetical to what those who fought in the Revolutionary war, the Founding Fathers and nearly all Americans wanted and thought they had created.

The concept that the bigger the government is, the freer people are is exactly what they opposed.

I guess it's time to tear it all down, which is basically the mission of the right-wing.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I just explained how taxes worked. Pretty much everybody understands this concept, except maybe libertarians. It's called the Social Contract for being an American Citizen.

What is your alternative? Put coin/cash/credit card meters everywhere? Do you honestly want to live in a Ron Swanson world?

Taxes work to (help) keep inflation in check. The more that the federal government spends which is “paid for” by borrowing and/or printing the funds to do so, the more inflation will result. By taxing at about 17% of GDP and spending at about 21% of GDP the difference will be “paid for” for by inflation.

 

[The Baron]

Do you agree with the idea that the bigger the Government, the smaller each citizen becomes?

I am not the originator of this point, although I have recognized it most of my life. But I am curious as to how my peers might think. The following is the argument:

The premise is that everything gets smaller as the government gets bigger. Including:

• Liberty
• Individuality
• Goodness
• Human Character

That this is both an observable fact and just plain common sense.

We can all recognize that Government does have a certain value when it:

Protects us from foreign attacks, and criminals in our own country; addresses natural and man-made disasters; and when all else fails, acts as a safety net of last resort.

BUT, it must always be of LAST resort; because when government is looked to as the FIRST resort, then individual responsibility tends to diminish.

First to go is Goodness. As people look more and more to government for help, individuals ask themselves "why help others when the government can do it for you?"

Next to go is Human Character. Relying on others to take care of you when you are capable of taking care of yourself is both selfish and the definition of irresponsible. Moreover, in relying on other’s in the form of State largess paid for via taxation creates a sense of ENTITLEMENT. This is soon followed by feelings of ingratitude and resentment at any attempts to modify or limit such largesse.

Then goes Liberty. The more government, the more rules. The more rules, the less liberty. U.S. example: the Federal Register which started out with 2,620 pages of rules in 1936 now has well over 87,000 pages currently. Microsoft Word - fed-reg-pages (llsdc.org)

Finally, when goodness, human character, and liberty dissipate, sacrificed to the power of government and the Collective, we ultimately lose our Individuality…becoming mere cogs in the machine of all pervasive government control.

In my opinion, the old saying "The best government is that which governs least" is how we should all look at centralized power and any desire to expand such power.

So, to the poll question: Do you agree that the bigger the Government, the smaller the individual citizen becomes in every way?

Yes

No

Other.

Very well said.

 

[it's just me]

You forget that WE are the government

Yeah, sure....

 

[joko104]

I guess it's time to tear it all down, which is basically the mission of the right-wing.

If this were the Revolutionary War, the right-wing would be the Revolutionaries and Founders and the left-wing would have fought with the British for the King.

Progressives are still fighting for installing a totalitarian government in the USA - and are winning. I didn't know only 45% of Americans supported the fight for personal freedom and democracy. Seems the percentage is much lower now.

 

[tshade]

I did work in Jimmy Carters initial campaign for President, but as a result ended up voting for his opposition, though he did get elected for one term.
The choices we are provided are very limited, and at most we are left only to pick the least worst. Believe otherwise if it makes you feel better.

The "choices" are up to you !! Didn't you ever go out and convince people to run for office, etc, etc ????? (I guess not_.......................This nation is a Republic, if you make use of it, it works.....

 

[tshade]

Yeah, sure....

You need to get off your duff and take part-----------------then you'll see.....

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I didn't know only 45% of Americans supported the fight for personal freedom and democracy.

By bypassing the election process and installing a Reality TeeVee Host as dictator?



LOL. lay off the FOX "news" fella, that stuff will turn your brain to mush.