5 ms·

This is what you get when people keep on voting in big government types all in the name of safety, security and social justice.

hyperpape 13y ago
Don't conflate things that are different. The libertarian two axis view of politics is still far too simple, but it's a start: plenty of people who rail against "big government" support the drug war, while plenty of people who like redistribution are adamantly against it.* As long as you don't get that point, you're working with a seriously limited view of politics. * If you really want to blow your mind, there are people who like redistribution, hate the drug war, and also think the government should significantly decrease its economic regulation. Edit: slightly nicer phrasing.
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  > plenty of people who rail against "big government" support the drug war, while plenty of people who like redistribution are adamantly against it.* Because no one actually cares about "big" or "small" government, they care about using the government to impose their beliefs on other people, whether those beliefs are conservative or liberal in nature. Both liberals and conservatives are actually for "big government", it's just that conservatives also lie about being for "small government". Liberals want the government to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, while conservatives want the government to wage war on drugs (read: ethnic minorities), other countries, women's rights, etc. But in the end, it's those with connections that are able to skim money off the top of all these transactions and laugh all the way to the bank. Obama allocated $607 billion for defense-related spending last Thursday - $30 billion more than was in the recent budget deal passed by Congress. So actually, the "liberals" are also supporting the military-industrial complex too.
  - hyperpape 13y ago
    You can say that, but then you have to own up to the fact that the two dimensions of "bigness" are unrelated. The drug war and medicare/social security (to take two other big programs) are good or bad for entirely separate reasons. The fact is, when you say you want the government to be small, you are conflating things that there are different. There are different ways to be big or small, and they have different advantages and disadvantages.
    - w1ntermute 13y ago
      > you have to own up to the fact that the two dimensions of "bigness" are unrelated You're mistaken - they have much in common. In order to be a successful political party, what you have to do is find issues that (a) a lot of people deeply believe in on an emotional level and (b) can be addressed in such a way that you can redirect large sums of money into the pockets of 3rd parties in the process, who will then support the election campaigns of your politicians. Whether this happens through providing obscenely overpriced healthcare to Americans or through buying/using drones to extrajudicially murder and terrorize Yemeni wedding-goers is just a detail. We could debate until the end of time how much value either of these initiatives actually provides to the American citizenry, but that's a completely separate issue (and not one that the vast majority of politicians give a rat's ass about).
drzaiusapelord 13y ago
Size is irrelevant. When you declare your mission is a 'war on drugs' you're going to end up losing, plain and simple. Meanwhile, very, very large government programs like the NHS do well and provide healthcare to millions in an affordable way with great outcomes. There's something very lazy about arguing about government size. Its just dumb simpleminded platitudes that libertarians pat each other on the back for, but don't really say anything.
- Crito 13y ago
  > Size is irrelevant. When you declare your mission is a 'war on drugs' you're going to end up losing, plain and simple. While size may not itself be damaging, size does correlate with collateral damage when a losing strategy (such as 'war on drugs') is chosen. The larger the DEA/ATF are, the more people that they can hurt.
- JHSheridan 13y ago
  > Meanwhile, very, very large government programs like the NHS do well and provide healthcare to millions in an affordable way with great outcomes. Isn't NHS facing bankruptcy?
  - michaelt 13y ago
    There's facing bankruptcy and there's facing bankruptcy. The government devolves responsibility for these things to local groups (to cut management overhead and let them respond to local needs | to transfer blame for under-funding away from elected MPs who set funding levels) and there are usually some local groups who report not having enough money (because the unaccountable bureaucrats are wasteful with other people's money | because threatening bankruptcy gets you more money and community support | because the government sets the funding levels to force them to find efficiency savings and not every local group can | because the government wants public sector failures they can point to in support of privatisation). In practice the hospitals stay open, and patients get their drugs and operations. Reports of impending doom are just politics as usual.
    - 13y ago
dm2 13y ago
There is nothing wrong with a large government as long as you can ensure that it is transparent and truly working for it's citizens. As soon as governments start abusing their power to help big business and for public officials personal agendas, then you have corruption and it is detrimental to that country and society. How could you have safety, security, and social justice WITHOUT a large government? There are 300 million people in this country, a good percentage are poor, a large percentage don't have great morals, and a transparent and strong government seems like the only way to combat that. Yes, a small government MIGHT work in a country that is unified and that has near 100% national loyalty, but the US does not. The US is very diversified, has a huge population, has tons of people who were raised to be greedy, and social conflicts are almost normal. A small government (near anarchy) is not the answer, in my humble opinion.
guelo 13y ago
As a liberal what pisses me off about the libertarian "big government" line is how it conflates the out of control militarized police state with, for example, school lunches for poor kids. Can't you tell the difference? Can't we have one without the other?

hyperpape 13y ago

Don't conflate things that are different. The libertarian two axis view of politics is still far too simple, but it's a start: plenty of people who rail against "big government" support the drug war, while plenty of people who like redistribution are adamantly against it.* As long as you don't get that point, you're working with a seriously limited view of politics. * If you really want to blow your mind, there are people who like redistribution, hate the drug war, and also think the government should significantly decrease its economic regulation. Edit: slightly nicer phrasing.

w1ntermute 13y ago
> plenty of people who rail against "big government" support the drug war, while plenty of people who like redistribution are adamantly against it.* Because no one actually cares about "big" or "small" government, they care about using the government to impose their beliefs on other people, whether those beliefs are conservative or liberal in nature. Both liberals and conservatives are actually for "big government", it's just that conservatives also lie about being for "small government". Liberals want the government to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, while conservatives want the government to wage war on drugs (read: ethnic minorities), other countries, women's rights, etc. But in the end, it's those with connections that are able to skim money off the top of all these transactions and laugh all the way to the bank. Obama allocated $607 billion for defense-related spending last Thursday - $30 billion more than was in the recent budget deal passed by Congress. So actually, the "liberals" are also supporting the military-industrial complex too.
- hyperpape 13y ago
  You can say that, but then you have to own up to the fact that the two dimensions of "bigness" are unrelated. The drug war and medicare/social security (to take two other big programs) are good or bad for entirely separate reasons. The fact is, when you say you want the government to be small, you are conflating things that there are different. There are different ways to be big or small, and they have different advantages and disadvantages.
  - w1ntermute 13y ago
    > you have to own up to the fact that the two dimensions of "bigness" are unrelated You're mistaken - they have much in common. In order to be a successful political party, what you have to do is find issues that (a) a lot of people deeply believe in on an emotional level and (b) can be addressed in such a way that you can redirect large sums of money into the pockets of 3rd parties in the process, who will then support the election campaigns of your politicians. Whether this happens through providing obscenely overpriced healthcare to Americans or through buying/using drones to extrajudicially murder and terrorize Yemeni wedding-goers is just a detail. We could debate until the end of time how much value either of these initiatives actually provides to the American citizenry, but that's a completely separate issue (and not one that the vast majority of politicians give a rat's ass about).

drzaiusapelord 13y ago

Size is irrelevant. When you declare your mission is a 'war on drugs' you're going to end up losing, plain and simple. Meanwhile, very, very large government programs like the NHS do well and provide healthcare to millions in an affordable way with great outcomes. There's something very lazy about arguing about government size. Its just dumb simpleminded platitudes that libertarians pat each other on the back for, but don't really say anything.

Crito 13y ago
> Size is irrelevant. When you declare your mission is a 'war on drugs' you're going to end up losing, plain and simple. While size may not itself be damaging, size does correlate with collateral damage when a losing strategy (such as 'war on drugs') is chosen. The larger the DEA/ATF are, the more people that they can hurt.
JHSheridan 13y ago
> Meanwhile, very, very large government programs like the NHS do well and provide healthcare to millions in an affordable way with great outcomes. Isn't NHS facing bankruptcy?
- michaelt 13y ago
  There's facing bankruptcy and there's facing bankruptcy. The government devolves responsibility for these things to local groups (to cut management overhead and let them respond to local needs | to transfer blame for under-funding away from elected MPs who set funding levels) and there are usually some local groups who report not having enough money (because the unaccountable bureaucrats are wasteful with other people's money | because threatening bankruptcy gets you more money and community support | because the government sets the funding levels to force them to find efficiency savings and not every local group can | because the government wants public sector failures they can point to in support of privatisation). In practice the hospitals stay open, and patients get their drugs and operations. Reports of impending doom are just politics as usual.
  - 13y ago

dm2 13y ago

There is nothing wrong with a large government as long as you can ensure that it is transparent and truly working for it's citizens. As soon as governments start abusing their power to help big business and for public officials personal agendas, then you have corruption and it is detrimental to that country and society. How could you have safety, security, and social justice WITHOUT a large government? There are 300 million people in this country, a good percentage are poor, a large percentage don't have great morals, and a transparent and strong government seems like the only way to combat that. Yes, a small government MIGHT work in a country that is unified and that has near 100% national loyalty, but the US does not. The US is very diversified, has a huge population, has tons of people who were raised to be greedy, and social conflicts are almost normal. A small government (near anarchy) is not the answer, in my humble opinion.

guelo 13y ago

As a liberal what pisses me off about the libertarian "big government" line is how it conflates the out of control militarized police state with, for example, school lunches for poor kids. Can't you tell the difference? Can't we have one without the other?