Difference between revisions of "Small government"
(saving draft) |
(summarizing pros and cons; debate moved to subpage) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==About== | ==About== | ||
The phrase "[[small government]]" refers to the idea of reducing the scope of governmental power, typically by reducing the amount of funding it receives. Advocates of this idea often see [[government]] as inherently evil because it has an intrinsically [[coercive]] nature. | The phrase "[[small government]]" refers to the idea of reducing the scope of governmental power, typically by reducing the amount of funding it receives. Advocates of this idea often see [[government]] as inherently evil because it has an intrinsically [[coercive]] nature. | ||
| + | ===Pages=== | ||
| + | * [[/debate]] | ||
===United States=== | ===United States=== | ||
In the {{USA}}, this typically means reducing the relative size of the [[US/gov|federal government]] compared to that of the state governments, with the presumption that this would allow the states more freedom to make decisions for their own jurisdictions. | In the {{USA}}, this typically means reducing the relative size of the [[US/gov|federal government]] compared to that of the state governments, with the presumption that this would allow the states more freedom to make decisions for their own jurisdictions. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 15: | ||
<div align=right>– source unknown; often [http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/government-big-enough-to-give-you-everything-you-wantquotation misattributed] to [[Thomas Jefferson]]</div> | <div align=right>– source unknown; often [http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/government-big-enough-to-give-you-everything-you-wantquotation misattributed] to [[Thomas Jefferson]]</div> | ||
==Debate== | ==Debate== | ||
| − | + | This idea seems appealing in many ways and indeed would provide a number of benefits: | |
| + | * Reduced ability for the government to wage war; popular support would be required. | ||
| + | * Less paperwork, less bureaucracy, fewer arbitrary rules. | ||
| + | * Less fear of having one's rights violated by the government. | ||
| − | : | + | There are, however, also a number of serious flaws with the idea as most commonly stated: |
| − | + | * The total absence of any kind of government is [[anarchy]], a [[power vacuum]], which is not a stable condition; it ultimately devolves into some form of [[feudalism]]. | |
| + | * Small government advocates do not seem to have a clear idea of what a satisfactory level of government would be, or how it would be regulated. | ||
| + | * Small government advocates generally do not seem to recognize that many people currently depend on the government services which would go away if government were "downsized", or at least do not recognize the legitimacy of such dependence; they are ready to "tear the house down before a new one is built". | ||
| − | + | For a structured examination of these and other pros and cons of small government, see [[/debate]]. | |
Revision as of 15:05, 11 January 2012
About
The phrase "small government" refers to the idea of reducing the scope of governmental power, typically by reducing the amount of funding it receives. Advocates of this idea often see government as inherently evil because it has an intrinsically coercive nature.
Pages
United States
In the United States, this typically means reducing the relative size of the federal government compared to that of the state governments, with the presumption that this would allow the states more freedom to make decisions for their own jurisdictions.
Advocates of small government policies most often self-identify as libertarians, "small-government Republicans", or fiscal conservatives.
Quotes
A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have....
Debate
This idea seems appealing in many ways and indeed would provide a number of benefits:
- Reduced ability for the government to wage war; popular support would be required.
- Less paperwork, less bureaucracy, fewer arbitrary rules.
- Less fear of having one's rights violated by the government.
There are, however, also a number of serious flaws with the idea as most commonly stated:
- The total absence of any kind of government is anarchy, a power vacuum, which is not a stable condition; it ultimately devolves into some form of feudalism.
- Small government advocates do not seem to have a clear idea of what a satisfactory level of government would be, or how it would be regulated.
- Small government advocates generally do not seem to recognize that many people currently depend on the government services which would go away if government were "downsized", or at least do not recognize the legitimacy of such dependence; they are ready to "tear the house down before a new one is built".
For a structured examination of these and other pros and cons of small government, see /debate.