Is "Big Government" an adequate description?

[MERIZoC]

When the term is used in the US, all it does is expose more of the GOP's hypocrisy. They complain about the tyrannical government, overreaching it's boundaries, and yet they oppose gay marriage, marijuana legalization, looser immigration laws, legalizing prostitution, etc.

[The Serbian Empire]

I don't see big government as an insult, I think the state should play a large role in managing the country as far as the welfare state, public services etc. We have one of the smallest governments (as a % of gdp) in the developed world so it's a pointless statement.

And it's still spending far more than any other government ever seen. Maybe it's the expenditures which make "Big Government" so well, big.

When the term is used in the US, all it does is expose more of the GOP's hypocrisy. They complain about the tyrannical government, overreaching it's boundaries, and yet they oppose gay marriage, marijuana legalization, looser immigration laws, legalizing prostitution, etc.

It makes those Libertarians look more reasonable by the day at least in the hypocrisy department as even the Democrats won't legalize prostitution as they must please those anti-sex feminists to get their votes in tight races against the GOP.

[Distruzio]

Big government (sometimes capitalized as Big Government) is a derogatory term generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates, or libertarians to describe a government or public sector that they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices.

While this phrase gets thrown around a lot in political discourse, at best it is very non-descriptive, and at worst it is nonsensical. It's usually used to describe government involvement in what the speaker considers to be a private affair; however "private affairs" seem rather subjective to me. An explanation as to what is "private" and what is "public" always seems to boil down to the preferences of the person in question.

...

There is also a tendancy to characterize such policies as taxation as "big government". This, however, to me, seems nonsensical. The government is the entity which defines property; this implicitly makes the distribution of property a natural part of its function. Property doesn't exist independently of government, so its policies involving the distribution of property, regardless of whether they involve collective property or not, are all equally "large".

What does Nationstates think? Is there any use to the phrase? Would you ever claim to support "big government"?

I used to lightly dance around that turn of phrase but, fortunately, the very tendency you describe is what led me further and further from those same critiques (vaguely encapsulated and expressed by the phrase "Big Government"). I try to avoid any implications that way now.

People talk about the non-aggression principle, but the definition of "aggression" always seems to be dependent on the opinions of the person invoking it. I'm inclined to think that punching someone to make them leave a piece of land is "aggressive," but according to NAP fans, it's "self-defense". They assume that property is an extension of personhood; whether this is wise or not, it doesn't seem at all objective, and looks exactly like a way to rationalize a preexisting ideological belief.

... of course it's a way to rationalize a preexisting ideological belief. Does this invalidate the argument?

[MERIZoC]

I don't see big government as an insult, I think the state should play a large role in managing the country as far as the welfare state, public services etc. We have one of the smallest governments (as a % of gdp) in the developed world so it's a pointless statement.

And it's still spending far more than any other government ever seen. Maybe it's the expenditures which make "Big Government" so well, big.

When the term is used in the US, all it does is expose more of the GOP's hypocrisy. They complain about the tyrannical government, overreaching it's boundaries, and yet they oppose gay marriage, marijuana legalization, looser immigration laws, legalizing prostitution, etc.

It makes those Libertarians look more reasonable by the day at least in the hypocrisy department as even the Democrats won't legalize prostitution as they must please those anti-sex feminists to get their votes in tight races against the GOP.

1: Reasonable libertarians. That's a good one.
2:Pretty sure many, if not most feminists support legalizing prostitution, seeing as it would offer more freedom for women, and help eliminate a lot of the degrading conditions that currently come with it.

[The Serbian Empire]

And it's still spending far more than any other government ever seen. Maybe it's the expenditures which make "Big Government" so well, big.


It makes those Libertarians look more reasonable by the day at least in the hypocrisy department as even the Democrats won't legalize prostitution as they must please those anti-sex feminists to get their votes in tight races against the GOP.

1: Reasonable libertarians. That's a good one.
2:Pretty sure many, if not most feminists support legalizing prostitution, seeing as it would offer more freedom for women, and help eliminate a lot of the degrading conditions that currently come with it.

The people who claim there's a war on women seem to make me think it's not so clear cut.

[Atlanticatia]

I don't see big government as an insult, I think the state should play a large role in managing the country as far as the welfare state, public services etc. We have one of the smallest governments (as a % of gdp) in the developed world so it's a pointless statement.

And it's still spending far more than any other government ever seen. Maybe it's the expenditures which make "Big Government" so well, big.

I disagree. Current years are in line with the last 40-50 years of spending.

[Planeia]

While this phrase gets thrown around a lot in political discourse, at best it is very non-descriptive, and at worst it is nonsensical. It's usually used to describe government involvement in what the speaker considers to be a private affair; however "private affairs" seem rather subjective to me. An explanation as to what is "private" and what is "public" always seems to boil down to the preferences of the person in question.

By that logic, the type of porn I like to watch, the type of health issues I have such as diarrhea, and my embarrassing moments is public information, and the NSA has every right to know it before anyone else does.

[Distruzio]

When the term is used in the US, all it does is expose more of the GOP's hypocrisy. They complain about the tyrannical government, overreaching it's boundaries, and yet they oppose gay marriage, marijuana legalization, looser immigration laws, legalizing prostitution, etc.

Hypocrisy or, rather, a particular definition of the term based on ideology?

For the GOP, the term applies only to matters of a progressively conservative nature (i.e. providing for the general welfare through corporations with government subsidies, protecting the nation-state by militarism abroad, promoting national pride and honor through cultural imperialism, etc etc).

For the Democrats, the term applies only to matters of a progressively liberal nature (i.e. providing for the general welfare through government mandates with corporate lapdogs, protecting the nation-state by militarism at home, national pride and honor through cultural assimilation, etc etc).

It isn't a matter of hypocrisy. It's just a matter of how one wishes to get to the same ideological peak.

[The Serbian Empire]

And it's still spending far more than any other government ever seen. Maybe it's the expenditures which make "Big Government" so well, big.

I disagree. Current years are in line with the last 40-50 years of spending.

In the terms of GDP, but not in the terms of budget. It's been a ballooning budget that depends on trillions of dollars. I think the problem is that the seat of government in Washington DC is too far from the point of geographical center. It's bound to be costing more to have the seat of government further and further from the center of population. And the only outlier above the current spending is Shrub's War on Terrorism when Iraq and Afghanistan were occurring at the same time.

[Lalaki]

I don't see big government as an insult, I think the state should play a large role in managing the country as far as the welfare state, public services etc. We have one of the smallest governments (as a % of gdp) in the developed world so it's a pointless statement.

But for people like me, it's still too big. And the government of America right now is big, if you compare it to what it was fifty or a hundred years ago.

50 years ago? 1964?

-Social Security
-Cold War Expenditures
-Around the time of the War on Poverty (LBJ had just gotten into office)
-A six years or so before the EPA

[The Serbian Empire]

But for people like me, it's still too big. And the government of America right now is big, if you compare it to what it was fifty or a hundred years ago.

50 years ago? 1964?

-Social Security
-Cold War Expenditures
-Around the time of the War on Poverty (LBJ had just gotten into office)
-A six years or so before the EPA

Sheesh, the only time in the last 50 years it wasn't bigger was when Bush had two large wars going on at once while expanding Medicare! Bush is the king of Big Government.

[Atlanticatia]

I disagree. Current years are in line with the last 40-50 years of spending.

In the terms of GDP, but not in the terms of budget. It's been a ballooning budget that depends on trillions of dollars. I think the problem is that the seat of government in Washington DC is too far from the point of geographical center. It's bound to be costing more to have the seat of government further and further from the center of population. And the only outlier above the current spending is Shrub's War on Terrorism when Iraq and Afghanistan were occurring at the same time.

That is completely irrelevant though. The budget will grow largely in line with population growth, GDP growth, and inflation. You can't expect the budget in nominal terms to stay the same as all these things grow.

Also, what does the location of DC have to do with anything? Why would moving the govt to Kansas make things more efficient and less expensive? The center of the country isn't exactly a population center, either..

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

So your argument is basically "join us or die". There is no place on Earth that is untouched by the government, except inhospitable land and other remote locations.

Yes. Most people refuse to sacrifice a stable society for edginess.

Stable? Being subject to ever-growing government power and erosion of rights - or perhaps the expansion, in some cases - doesn't sound very stable to me.

I'd rather live on my own property and voluntarily interact with fellow human beings rather than live in the wild, thanks.

So you don't have an alternative system that actually works?

Voluntarism is my alternative. I don't think you seem to grasp the fact that humans came before governments.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

An individual's vote is meaningless, except in very rare circumstances.

It only becomes meaningless if people say their vote is meaningless and don't vote, or don't do their research and form their own opinions.
You are perfectly welcome to start a grassroots campaign for a government that represents your views, build support, find funding, and get someone elected to congress.

Campaigning to expand your rights requires majority support. Sure, you can say "I want more freedom!", but it doesn't mean you'll get it without a lot of work and time, if you'll get it at all. Essentially you need the majority's approval to exercise your rights, because that's how democracies work.

However, courts sometimes do adequate jobs of protecting rights.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

But for people like me, it's still too big. And the government of America right now is big, if you compare it to what it was fifty or a hundred years ago.

50 years ago? 1964?

-Social Security
-Cold War Expenditures
-Around the time of the War on Poverty (LBJ had just gotten into office)
-A six years or so before the EPA

You know what I mean. Today the regulatory state grows larger and larger, civil liberties are further eroded and the destructive legacies of Roosevelt and Johnson are further expanded.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

50 years ago? 1964?

-Social Security
-Cold War Expenditures
-Around the time of the War on Poverty (LBJ had just gotten into office)
-A six years or so before the EPA

Sheesh, the only time in the last 50 years it wasn't bigger was when Bush had two large wars going on at once while expanding Medicare! Bush is the king of Big Government.

This. Probably even more big government than Obama.

[Mavorpen]

Stable? Being subject to ever-growing government power and erosion of rights - or perhaps the expansion, in some cases - doesn't sound very stable to me.

I don't particularly care if it sounds stable to you or not.

Voluntarism is my alternative.

So like I said, you don't have an alternative system that actually works.

I don't think you seem to grasp the fact that humans came before governments.

So did rape. What's your point, exactly? Because seems to me you're lazily falling back upon a fallacious appeal to nature.

[Atlanticatia]

It only becomes meaningless if people say their vote is meaningless and don't vote, or don't do their research and form their own opinions.
You are perfectly welcome to start a grassroots campaign for a government that represents your views, build support, find funding, and get someone elected to congress.

Campaigning to expand your rights requires majority support. Sure, you can say "I want more freedom!", but it doesn't mean you'll get it without a lot of work and time, if you'll get it at all. Essentially you need the majority's approval to exercise your rights, because that's how democracies work.

However, courts sometimes do adequate jobs of protecting rights.

If you want to try to influence people's opinions, it takes time and effort. If you are that passionate about making the government 'smaller', then spend the time and effort convincing people to consider your opinions and views.

And yes, it'd be unfair to impose something upon everyone when only a minority of people agree with it. That is why democracy works, because it represents the majority of people, and people who are in the minority are perfectly welcome to try to influence the majority.

[Atlanticatia]

50 years ago? 1964?

-Social Security
-Cold War Expenditures
-Around the time of the War on Poverty (LBJ had just gotten into office)
-A six years or so before the EPA

You know what I mean. Today the regulatory state grows larger and larger, civil liberties are further eroded and the destructive legacies of Roosevelt and Johnson are further expanded.

I don't get it, are you against social insurance programs or regulatory programs?

So your argument is basically "join us or die". There is no place on Earth that is untouched by the government, except inhospitable land and other remote locations.

Or are you against the government building infrastructure, clearing land, etc to make places hospitable and non-remote?

However, courts sometimes do adequate jobs of protecting rights.

But wait, I'm confused. You're okay with laws existing to protect rights that are protected by the courts? (government)



I'm not really sure what your end goal is. "Libertarians" or whatever you call yourself just like to pick and choose which aspects of government they want.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Stable? Being subject to ever-growing government power and erosion of rights - or perhaps the expansion, in some cases - doesn't sound very stable to me.

I don't particularly care if it sounds stable to you or not.

That's unnecessarily rude and dodging the argument. No society is 'stable' in a permanent state of aggression.

Voluntarism is my alternative.

So like I said, you don't have an alternative system that actually works.

Why would voluntarism not work?

I don't think you seem to grasp the fact that humans came before governments.

So did rape. What's your point, exactly? Because seems to me you're lazily falling back upon a fallacious appeal to nature.

No, I'm not. You're conflating correlation with causation. You asserted that a civilised society cannot exist without the state. This is wrong. Governments exist because of civilised societies. They feed off of the produce of individuals, which would already exist with or without a state. As I said, individuals preceded the existence of government and can survive without it.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

You know what I mean. Today the regulatory state grows larger and larger, civil liberties are further eroded and the destructive legacies of Roosevelt and Johnson are further expanded.

I don't get it, are you against social insurance programs or regulatory programs?

I'm against both unless they're provided voluntarily by markets.

So your argument is basically "join us or die". There is no place on Earth that is untouched by the government, except inhospitable land and other remote locations.

Or are you against the government building infrastructure, clearing land, etc to make places hospitable and non-remote?

All of these are great, but what is not great is that they're done by force in this case. Eminent domain may have net benefits (by a utilitarian standpoint) but tramples over individual rights to achieve them.

However, courts sometimes do adequate jobs of protecting rights.

But wait, I'm confused. You're okay with laws existing to protect rights that are protected by the courts? (government)

I'm not really sure what your end goal is. "Libertarians" or whatever you call yourself just like to pick and choose which aspects of government they want.

I never claimed that I supported government courts. I just conceded that they do, in some cases, protect rights, in the same way that some politicians succeed in reducing the size of government.

[Louisiana-Quebec]

People talk about the non-aggression principle, but the definition of "aggression" always seems to be dependent on the opinions of the person invoking it. I'm inclined to think that punching someone to make them leave a piece of land is "aggressive," but according to NAP fans, it's "self-defense". They assume that property is an extension of personhood; whether this is wise or not, it doesn't seem at all objective, and looks exactly like a way to rationalize a preexisting ideological belief.

... of course it's a way to rationalize a preexisting ideological belief. Does this invalidate the argument?

No, the problem is that it is not objective. I was offering an explanation as to why people believe it in spite of this. My point was, property as an extension of personhood only follows naturally as an attempt to justify a belief, not as an attempt to deduce truth from observations about reality.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

Why should my rights be trampled because some gang with guns says that I can't grow cannabis, run my business, own firearms, marry who I want, do what.I want with my body, etc.

All government is based off of is theft and killing. They take your property and rights, if you resist, they kill.you or.imprison you.

[Geilinor]

And it's still spending far more than any other government ever seen. Maybe it's the expenditures which make "Big Government" so well, big.


It makes those Libertarians look more reasonable by the day at least in the hypocrisy department as even the Democrats won't legalize prostitution as they must please those anti-sex feminists to get their votes in tight races against the GOP.

1: Reasonable libertarians. That's a good one.
2:Pretty sure many, if not most feminists support legalizing prostitution, seeing as it would offer more freedom for women, and help eliminate a lot of the degrading conditions that currently come with it.

At least the Libertarian party isn't quite so hypocritical with its attack on "tyrannical government". It doesn't mean I'd vote for them because of their economics, but I do credit them with what they do right.

[The Serbian Empire]

Sheesh, the only time in the last 50 years it wasn't bigger was when Bush had two large wars going on at once while expanding Medicare! Bush is the king of Big Government.

This. Probably even more big government than Obama.

It makes me very weary of moderate Republicans even more than Democrats as they have all the social spending of a Dem with the war mongering of a GOP hawk.