I hear a lot of people talk about small government. "Small Government," it's easy to say, but I don't think people always understand what that means. To me, small government is a government that exists for a purpose, and executes that purpose and nothing further.
In our case, government is supposed to exist to protect our mutual interests as a society. Really, nothing more than that, at any level. The Constitution is mostly administrative stuff, but when it gets down to the nitty gritty it's all about what the government CAN'T do. They didn't establish a right to free speech. They said that right was automatic and they aren't allowed to take it away. When somebody says that you shouldn't take it for granted, tell them that it should be taken for granted, it's supposed to be! That's what small government is about. It's about the government getting out of your daily affairs and letting you go about your business.
I think a government is good for some things, it can protect our mutual interests pretty well. We need an organized system to deal with criminals. You can't let people run around murdering and stealing all the time, so there has to be a way to deal with that, there has to be a system in place that provides a consistently fair response to crime. A national government can also protect our interests in the form of defense.
The government rarely earns its own way, so the burden of paying for the government rests with the people, who probably have better things to pay for than the government. That is why it is in our best interest to have a government that is as small as possible, to reduce the waste of government excess like bureaucracy, frivolous spending (that the people being "represented" have no input on), bailouts, etc.
Personally, I think the worst of the waste is at the national level. In fact, I'm of the opinion that the federal government should be the weakest of all the governments in the nation. I think that any local community/city/town laws should be held in higher regard than the laws of a larger area, since those laws are the closest to being the will of the people. Here's an overly convoluted example: I don't think it's right that if Town A is represented with a majority of people who want to establish a casino in their town, and Town B is represented by people who don't want to establish a casino anywhere, but Town B is much larger and populous, and they're in the same state, for Town B's vote to override the will of the majority of people in Town A. Why not just let the people have what they want in their respective communities? Every time there is a national election you see the red states and the blue states. Why does federal law override state laws?? Shouldn't the will of the people WHERE THEY LIVE be more important than the will of everybody else?
I liked the idea of 13 states with individual governments, that established a federal government mainly for their defense. Whatever happened to that? I believe in democracy. I believe that the people generally know what is right for them personally. If 84% of the state of Kansas voted to be a monarchy, or communist, or a theocracy, I really don't agree with that, and I'm not sure any of those options would work long term, but I can't argue with the will of the people. In our current form, that wouldn't be allowed to happen, it would be stopped by our federal government.
When somebody says they are a supporter of small government, ask them how small they are talking. A smaller government could still be a massively huge government. Small government has not been seen for a long time, but it's possible, and we can work toward it.
I don't have time to go over every aspect of small government, but it's probably a topic I'll get back to on a near-daily basis. I just wanted to do a quick rundown, and it ended up long and convoluted. I have some ideas for the rest of the week, so keep your eyes peeled. Also, there is a link for my twitter at the bottom of the page, if you want to sign up for it I'll send out a notice when I post a new blog.
Let's take a look at some polls, shall we?
14 years ago
Great article. I gotta ask, though, according to what you said, the will of the people should not be overturned. What about Prop 8 in California? Should it be overturned like they are trying to do?
ReplyDeleteI don't think social issues should be legislated but if that's what the people want, then why not? On an issue this divisive, wouldn't it be a great idea to vote for it on a more local level, so that 48 percent of the people aren't left out in the cold? I mean, that's an awful lot of people to think that their side is right, why not have a vote in every county or every city and I have a feeling that more than 52% of California voters would be satisfied with the results. If gay marriage is overwhelmingly supported in one county and overwhelmingly opposed in the other, both counties could be happy, right? Small Government - For the people, by the people.
ReplyDeleteOh, I should also note, I mean, come on, if you don't like gay marriage, that's your right, but isn't it kind of mean-spirited to deny a group of people something that will effect only themselves, and will only lead to happiness on their part, and have no effect on anybody outside of them and the people they choose to share it with? Don't come at me with the "sanctity of marriage," if marriage is sacred, why is divorce such a common thing? Maybe if somebody is a fan of straight marriage, they should worry more about the absolute destruction of the foundation of marriage as a serious thing in our society.
ReplyDeleteBut, right now, it already IS legislated. So, again, the will of the people is to deny gay marriage. Do you agree with the will of the people denying them marriage? Simple question. And do you agree with letting something to be voted amng the people and then the court to overturn the will of the people? Simple question. Simple answer.
ReplyDeleteThe "why not have a vote in every county or every city". Makes no sense. Then different counties will have different laws regarding marriage. That's retarded.
And the sanctity of marriage has noithing to do with it. You made the comment that the will of the states electorate ought to determine it's own. You even said if a state wanted to seccede, iot should be able to. Yet, when the issue that is actually on the table...one of gay marrriage and whether the most liberal state in the nation's will be overturned, you buckle.
You gotta be consistent, bro.
When did I buckle? Maybe I wasn't clear before. I said, "...if that's the will of the people, then why not?" By that I mean if the people want to vote on it, then whatever they vote on should stand. It's democracy.
ReplyDeleteWhat's retarded about different counties and cities having different laws about marriage? States already do it, and sometimes localities have different regulations for getting marriage licenses. I know there are drive thru wedding chapels in Vegas, but in Maryland you have to wait 3 days. I also know at some point there was a town in Maryland that was the only town in the region without a waiting period and couples would elope there all the time. So I don't think it's weird that a locality would have different rules. I just figure if local people had more control, they'd be happier with the result more often.
About the courts overturning it, it depends. If something is deemed unconstitutional, it needs to be made a constitutional amendment, and if that's not what the people voted on, then I guess it should be overturned. You can't just make illegal legislation. But that's just hoops that (rightly, in the case of constitutionality) need to be jumped through.