My last article on government size messaging lead to exchanges in the comments. I had not expected such advocates of small government / libertarianism at Daily Kos. Perhaps, I'm just too new here.
From the comments made to the previous post, it seems to me the criticism of government programs fell into two types:
a) Ascribing any shortcomings of particular present-day government programs to the fact they were government programs, and
b) Viewing any government activity as placing limits on individual freedom
The first type is simply not true. The comments mentioned limited insurance options an individual could choose from under the Affordable Care Act or under a single payer system. Particular programs such as these should be the result of the majority exercising their will through the government. (At the present time, the rich exert a disproportionate influence on government, so today we don't experience full majority rule, but this distinction doesn't really make a difference to small government advocates.) The majority want government programs like Medicare - a program small government advocates would view as limiting individual choice. However, this isn't inherent in government. There's nothing about government which makes it impossible for a government to act as a health insurance company, to offer every kind of insurance policy that private companies do, to calculate premiums in mostly the same way as private companies do - only to do this on a non-profit basis. Consumers could have all the choices they would have otherwise (at lower cost). Businesspeople could still be permitted to run private insurance companies, although it might not be as lucrative as it is today. Government programs can be whatever we want. The question is: Do we want majority rule in which a minority may not get to do what it would prefer.
So, yes, there's an element of truth in the second objection libertarians have to government programs. Majority rule doesn't mean 100% of the people have to agree in order for a policy to be enacted. Libertarians don't disagree with that entirely. They believe the majority should be able to operate through government for a select number of areas which are acceptable to them - mostly the military, the police and such. [Note: the areas libertarians DO approve of are those in which the most force is used.] Basically, they want protection of property and body. Or to put it another way, government programs should never benefit the underprivileged unless it benefits the privileged at least as much.
When libertarians argue government means fewer choices, they're only looking at half of the equation. A society with rules restricts some choices. But living in the wild without the benefits of an organized society able to provide a modern world prevents one from having a lot of choices people have today. Perhaps, we'd like to have our cake and eat it too. We can't. We have to choose which choices we deny ourselves. Modern society does not and cannot exist without substantial government.
When the majority decides the government should have anti-poverty programs, that puts requirements on the more fortunate. But people living in poverty have many fewer available choices. Anti-poverty programs allow millions of people to make more choices. And as Adam Smith said, “No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable.” So this is a reasonable choice for the more sortunate as well.
(When my father graduated high school, his family wasn't dirt poor but there was no way they could afford college. Several years later, war began. Afterward, he was able to do college on the GI Bill. He had the motivation and academic ability, but without government help he didn't have a meaningful choice. With government help he did. The expansion of college education was a big benefit for society as a whole.)
Libertarians may say that it's not their intent to impose on the majority a limit on what they can do with government, but they want to convince the majority to impose those limits on themselves. That may be exactly reflected in the actions of some. It's not as clear whether that is entirely true for those who try to overturn government programs using lawsuits. (One could argue the court system is indirectly controlled by voters. On the other hand, they may try to overturn government programs using Constitutional provisions enacted when only a minority were allowed to vote.) Perhaps, true libertarians would not go further than that to block majority will on government programs, but not all small government advocates are true libertarians.
Small government advocates are using gerrymandering, voter suppression / intimidation, and other means that circumvent true majority rule. They are also using vast amounts of money to try to influence voters. Small government advocates will say this "educates" voters and allows them to freely make their choices. This in a sense gets to the bottom of this issue. Imagine a presidential debate in which the candidate who has more money gets to talk more and the candidate who has less money can't talk as much. Does this "educate" voters and give the truest majority rule? Most of us would say no. Small government advocates may say yes.
Are some people "more equal" than others? Does the fact your ancestors made a fortune in the slave trade before the Civil War and your family has been rich ever since mean the candidate you want should have twice as many ads as a candidate supported by people who aren't wealthy? Does a candidate with only one contributor but who gives $10,000 deserve to have twice as many ads as a candidate with 50 supporters who can only give $100 each ($5000 total)? To many libertarians, doing just that is an important part of the definition of freedom. When all else fails, they start talking "property rights" as if unlimited property rights were sacred. Few Americans want to live with no personal property, but it's not a sacred, unlimited right. Freedom of speech is of great importance, but it's not absolute either - it doesn't allow slander or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Most Americans don't think like libertarians. Most Americans want at least some of the government programs that make so-called "big government". Lots of Americans oppose particular aspects of certain programs, which may make them oppose that particular program. However, there are Americans who want Medicare, but are unhappy with the Affordable Care Act. Obviously, not because they oppose government involvement in health care, but because of aspects of the ACA.
Americans are humans. Humans are social beings. Even if a certain government program for the poor cost the average citizen more than the economic benefits they got back from it, the majority may find it worthwhile in the satisfaction they got to their sense of fairness, their need for social acts, a feeling they had earned the right to ask for help when they need it, a feeling of paying back for help they once got from others, and/or it can feel good to see you're well-off enough to be able to help others. What makes something desirable to most people is not only financial.
So, there are good reasons - both in terms of having a healthy, prosperous modern civilization and in satisfying human desires - for government programs.
The fact libertarians are a minority doesn't mean they lose their right to express their views. In situations such as election campaigns, we can require that they do this in a manner which is fair. Precisely what is "fair" is not undisputed. We won't always agree about those rules, but that doesn't mean there should be no rules. Democracy isn't perfect, but until we find something better...
* * * * *
This will be the first time I add an "extended" part to one of my diaries, so I'm not sure how it will work. The "extended" part is an article on "What's Wrong With Free Market Economics" - not an economics tract, but notes on a number of areas in which the average person can see it's not good for the majority.
I'll be posting this second part as a separate diary.
What's wrong with free market economy
http://www.dailykos.com/...