3 ms·

> 2) Many of the biggest changes in the U.S. since 1970 have been in the direction of deregulation, increased emphasis on markets, and smaller government.[4] P

> 2) Many of the biggest changes in the U.S. since 1970 have been in the direction of deregulation, increased emphasis on markets, and smaller government.[4] Pretty much every single libertarian I talk to would vehemently disagree here. Drug laws, war on terror, militarization of police, copyright and patent expansion, the massive and growing number of prisoners (more in absolute numbers than China!), money transmitter laws, safety regulations, the NSA, the perpetually growing number of federal and state regulations per year, etc are usually cited (also, many libertarians throw in growing welfare spending, which I'm obliged to include even though I personally find it vastly less offensive than something like throwing black people in jail for a parking ticket). There is actually a good theory that explains the disparity between this and the high-profile deregulation cases: in the case of laws that substantially harm very specific and powerful groups, there is a strong and concentrated interest in repealing them, so they get repealed. On the other hand, in the case of micro-nuisances targeting small entrepreneurs fighting against the law a public goods problem, where each individual person has insufficient incentive to do anything about it.

rayiner 13y ago
The problem with your examples is that they ignore the relative impact of different sorts of government interventions. From 1970 to 2002, the non-interest, non-SS/Medicare portion of the budget shrunk from 15% of GDP to 10% of GDP. That's a $750 billion change. E.g. the drug war might be a great injustice, but the entire budget of the federal prison system is only $6-7 billion. The militarization of the police is, economically, more than outweighed by the dramatic shrinking of our actual military. In 1970, there was 1 federal uniformed military person for every 65 people. Today it's 1 for every 203. We might have a war on terror, but back then we had a war on communism, and defense spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 8% in 1970 to 5% today. The number of regulations might be more, but that's a worthless measure. The federal administrative bureaucracy writing and overseeing and enforcing those regulations has shrunk dramatically. In 1970, there was 1 federal civilian employee for every 69 people. Today there is 1 for every 117 people.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Oh, you and your facts.
- meric 13y ago
  It looks like that governments are spending less money to enforce it's rules and laws. I think the money spent can be misleading for some cases when determining whether the government has shrink in a given area. For example, it would have been much more expensive in the 1970's to monitor everyone's communications than today, and even if their funding for spying on domestic communications has dropped by, say, 50%, one would hardly argue that the government has reduced it's surveillance in this area. For this case, and I'm sure there are others, spending less money might mean the government has shrunk in terms of number of employees, but it doesn't mean the government has shrunk in terms of power.
- SideshowBobb 13y ago
  We now live in a world where everything we do is recorded, and yes, even used against us (parallel construction). American citizens can be detained indefinitely without trial. The police are becoming militarized and the TSA/DHS is expanding beyond airports into bus stations and train stations. I'm legitimately afraid to cross the border, or use the Internet without Tor browser. And, shocker, I'm feeling completely disillusioned with everything. I know I'm not alone. AFAIK most of the military equipment going to police departments and the DHS is recycled from wars abroad. The surveillance state is or is becoming fully automated, and I don't see how that will make it anything but cheaper to enact tyranny over the long run. Unmanned drones flying overhead are cheaper than putting cops in helicopters. To be quite honest, I don't care if the government is spending less money relative to the 1970s, and I don't care whether the financial markets are less regulated. It feels like we live in a police state, that's the fact. That is what I object to, and THAT is why plenty will strongly object to this notion of there being "smaller government" these days. To think that just because it costs less money or requires less regulations to run a full blown surveillance state somehow means today's government is smaller is just utterly absurd.
- jophde 13y ago
  The problem is that Government hasn't enforced Anti-Trust Laws since 1970. Things are more deregulated but the only companies that can compete are already part of the Fascist state. Do you remember when you had more than 10 choices for Internet? Breaking up monopolies should be a primary function of the US Government. Now it encourages them.

rayiner 13y ago

The problem with your examples is that they ignore the relative impact of different sorts of government interventions. From 1970 to 2002, the non-interest, non-SS/Medicare portion of the budget shrunk from 15% of GDP to 10% of GDP. That's a $750 billion change. E.g. the drug war might be a great injustice, but the entire budget of the federal prison system is only $6-7 billion. The militarization of the police is, economically, more than outweighed by the dramatic shrinking of our actual military. In 1970, there was 1 federal uniformed military person for every 65 people. Today it's 1 for every 203. We might have a war on terror, but back then we had a war on communism, and defense spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 8% in 1970 to 5% today. The number of regulations might be more, but that's a worthless measure. The federal administrative bureaucracy writing and overseeing and enforcing those regulations has shrunk dramatically. In 1970, there was 1 federal civilian employee for every 69 people. Today there is 1 for every 117 people.

anigbrowl 13y ago
Oh, you and your facts.
meric 13y ago
It looks like that governments are spending less money to enforce it's rules and laws. I think the money spent can be misleading for some cases when determining whether the government has shrink in a given area. For example, it would have been much more expensive in the 1970's to monitor everyone's communications than today, and even if their funding for spying on domestic communications has dropped by, say, 50%, one would hardly argue that the government has reduced it's surveillance in this area. For this case, and I'm sure there are others, spending less money might mean the government has shrunk in terms of number of employees, but it doesn't mean the government has shrunk in terms of power.
SideshowBobb 13y ago
We now live in a world where everything we do is recorded, and yes, even used against us (parallel construction). American citizens can be detained indefinitely without trial. The police are becoming militarized and the TSA/DHS is expanding beyond airports into bus stations and train stations. I'm legitimately afraid to cross the border, or use the Internet without Tor browser. And, shocker, I'm feeling completely disillusioned with everything. I know I'm not alone. AFAIK most of the military equipment going to police departments and the DHS is recycled from wars abroad. The surveillance state is or is becoming fully automated, and I don't see how that will make it anything but cheaper to enact tyranny over the long run. Unmanned drones flying overhead are cheaper than putting cops in helicopters. To be quite honest, I don't care if the government is spending less money relative to the 1970s, and I don't care whether the financial markets are less regulated. It feels like we live in a police state, that's the fact. That is what I object to, and THAT is why plenty will strongly object to this notion of there being "smaller government" these days. To think that just because it costs less money or requires less regulations to run a full blown surveillance state somehow means today's government is smaller is just utterly absurd.
jophde 13y ago
The problem is that Government hasn't enforced Anti-Trust Laws since 1970. Things are more deregulated but the only companies that can compete are already part of the Fascist state. Do you remember when you had more than 10 choices for Internet? Breaking up monopolies should be a primary function of the US Government. Now it encourages them.