Americans Do Care About Smaller Government
In comments Freddie writes:
…if there’s one thing that I hear again and again from Republicans, it’s that Americans have this great aversion to growing the government. And I simply don’t think that this is true. If they do, they’ve been remarkably patient about getting what they want. Ronald Reagan grew the government. George HW Bush grew the government. George W Bush grew the government. Republican congressional majorities in 1994 and 2002 failed to meaningfully shrink the government.
I fully expect Republicans to be back on top in the next several election cycles. That’s American politics. But as for small government orthodoxy, I’m sorry, I see no evidence that it’s something that the majority of the American electorate cares about on any kind of a substantive level.
What’s going on is that Americans want both smaller government and getting there without having to cut the particular government programs that they like. Americans want lower taxes without having to decrease spending. They want contradictory things, and they want something for nothing. They do genuinely want small government, and all the benefits thereof, but there is insufficient agreement about how to get there for it to happen politically.
Does this make Freddie wrong?
I’d say he is partly wrong. On a matter like health care, my sense of popular opinion is that a majority of Americans are okay with a bigger federal role if it means a better system (setting aside the issue of whether that result will obtain). But I think Freddie has to admit that on many matters, there is a majority of citizens who are for less government, and despite that, the popular thing isn’t happening due to the nature of politics in America.
Think of agricultural subsidies. The obstacles to getting rid of them are several — interested parties have a lot more to lose than the average citizen has to gain by their repeal; due to the structure of the Senate and the roll played by the Iowa caucuses, low population agricultural states exert disproportionate influence on the political system; no Congressperson or president has a particular incentive to launch this crusade. Or think of public employee unions in California. Does anyone think the state’s voters would’ve approved a ballot initiative allowing DMV clerks to retire at age 50 and receive 90 percent of their salary for the rest of their lives? Or take drug policy. A liberal cause would benefit if government were shrunk in every state where voters favor legalizing medical marijuana and decriminalizing even non-medical consumption, or even if we stopped pouring billions of dollars into drug eradication efforts in South America and Afghanistan, but the Feds are preventing that from happening.
I grant that Americans are tempted by stuff like “free” health care, universal pre-school, and other government spending programs, but I think it is silly to look at growth in government across several eras and conclude that voters really don’t care about size of government, when the better explanation is that for reasons of structure, inertia and political incentives, it is much harder to shrink any kind of government than to grow it, regardless of public opinion. Were the true preferences of Americans reflected in reality, I am unsure whether the overall size of government would be bigger or smaller — the answer would probably change from year to year with the vagaries of public opinion — but I am sure that certain expensive outlays we endure now would be eliminated. Finally, whatever the state of public opinion, it remains the case that an ever larger government reduces economic freedom, is more capable of impinging on basic liberties, and (insofar as it is funded by deficit spending) creeps closer to bringing about the financial collapse of America. Citizens would do well to develop a deeper aversion to an ever-expanding government, and to be more demanding about their preferences being met. This end would be aided if people like Freddie stopped acting as though every time Americans express contradictory preferences, lusting for new government programs without being willing to fund them, the default outcome should be passing the programs. I’d say the default should be: don’t pass any new program Americans aren’t willing to fund with higher taxes. Given that standard, I imagine that the country would be far less amenable to certain programs Freddie champions than he thinks.
A friend of mine is fond of saying, “The best way to figure out what you want is to look at what you have.”
— Tony Comstock · Jun 8, 12:07 AM · #
I think I agree with almost all of this. I should have been more clear— I think that Americans are very happy about the idea of smaller government and all else being equal would prefer a small government to a large one. I just don’t think that they’re willing to sacrifice anything of great value to get there. Personally, I want Social Security benefits means tested, a value added tax and a cut along the lines of 8%-12% of the military budget. But a lower military budget means less defense sector jobs, and unemployment is already a big problem…. The question is, where does the metaphorical rubber meet the road? It may be that part of the problem is that our leaders, like me, have too low an opinion of American willingness to sacrifice.
I do think this: widespread unemployment means all bets are off. There are a variety of economic problems that this country has faced, and will continue to face. But high permanent unemployment upsets the basic social contract in this country to such a degree I could see it greatly changing the basic structures of American life. My sense is that it would lead to further Europeanization, but I could also see it leading to a grand libertarian experiment as well.
I’d say the default should be: don’t pass any new program Americans aren’t willing to fund with higher taxes. Given that standard, I imagine that the country would be far less amenable to certain programs Freddie champions than he thinks.
That’s the great question, isn’t it? My sense of the country— and I’m not very good at judging this sort of thing, I’m afraid— is that people are now willing to try a more European system to see if it results in a higher quality of life. Time may tell. It may not. I guess we’ll see. Or, rather, we’ll see if we’re going to see.
— Freddie · Jun 8, 12:13 AM · #
Also, most people don’t understand what they could have if government had less power and the private sector had more power. We are not at the point where we trust our own benevolence and good sense — however, we may be forced to accept it if government collapses under the weight of its increasing responsibilities. The associations created to deal with societal problems in America’s private sector before the rise of statism can be created again, with even more effectiveness and innovation in this technological age.
— mike farmer · Jun 8, 12:21 AM · #
Conor
An interesting post. I believe the primary difficulty in decreasing the size of government is that the politician’s involved, both Republican and Democrat, derive power on the basis of these very programs.
With sentences like:
“What’s going on is that Americans want both smaller government and getting there without having to cut the particular government programs that they like.”
You initially seemed to be accounting for the persistent increase in government size to be due to the capricious nature of the people. But it is not the people that are running the government at this stage of our nations life. It is the professional politician.
“Freddie has to admit that on many matters, there is a majority of citizens who are for less government, and despite that, the popular thing isn’t happening due to the nature of politics in America.”
And
“the better explanation is that for reasons of structure, inertia and political incentives, it is much harder to shrink any kind of government than to grow it, regardless of public opinion.”
seem correct in my view. Even a conservative like Reagan, who returned surplus revenues to the people of the state of California over the objections of the state house and senate, was unable to resist the steady increase in the size of the Federal government, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1985 not withstanding.
“I’d say the default should be: don’t pass any new program Americans aren’t willing to fund with higher taxes. Given that standard, I imagine that the country would be far less amenable to certain programs Freddie champions than he thinks.”
A fine sentiment. However, the sad truth is that a great number of the beneficiaries of the Federal largesse are not actually sharing the burden of paying Federal taxes. The implications of that are ominous.
— nicholas · Jun 8, 12:35 AM · #
“…but I think it is silly to look at growth in government across several eras and conclude that voters really don’t care about size of government…”
I’m going to snip this sentence right here. THis is really crux. You say it’s structural but Americans have had a long time to shrink the government. Democrats never campaign on small government yet they get somewhere near 50% almost always. REpublicans who do campaing on small government never really fulfil thier promises and they still get somewhre near 50%.
I think the reason that Americans arn’t up in arms about the failure of politicians to delviver small governemnt is tha they don’t realy care that much. What they and most human beings really want is what is not to have to think about government very much at all. They just want thier lives to work and make sense. They don’t care who they pay to provide the services they want, they just want them to be affordable and work. We pay $400 a month as our share of my wife’s employee provieded health insurance. I don’t care who I am paying that $400—the gov, some health insureance company—as long as the health care works. And if someone can deliver it cheaper, that would be great. Since I currently get health care form an insurance company and I don’t think they are going to cut my rates, I’m more than willing to see what the gov can do.
We have a perfect example in europe. THey pay the government for lots of stuff like daycare, education and health insurance that we pay private companies, and for the most part, as far as I have read, they are fine with that arrangement.
— cw · Jun 8, 01:11 AM · #
I thought there might be those who wanted to try European-style government but there are also those who probably weren’t thinking about what type of government they’d have. I think some people get sick of the challenge of trying to get ahead and just want things to be easier. I often wonder if there are many people who think a Democratic government will take care of the poor so they won’t have to feel guilty about not doing so.
— Joules · Jun 8, 01:21 AM · #
“it remains the case that an ever larger government reduces economic freedom, is more capable of impinging on basic liberties, and (insofar as it is funded by deficit spending) creeps closer to bringing about the financial collapse of America. Citizens would do well to develop a deeper aversion to an ever-expanding government, and to be more demanding about their preferences being met.”
This is your general Hayek RTS thesis. What empirical evidence backs this up? I look around the world, and look at democracies that are generally identified as vibrant and free and see larger welfare states. I see none that has collapsed into any Hayekian RTS nightmare, ever.
I don’t see why anyone ought to accept this kind of thing as a premise without the at least occasional accounting for how the real world is working out. There is clearly an allergy at TAS for the “European welfare state”. It’s undesirable on its face – it’s asserted, and doesn’t require further explanation, it’s a three-letter-phrase that ought to evoke horror.
But it sure seems to work! You can talk all day about the inefficiencies, but when it comes to nurturing a modern liberal democracy it doesn’t seem like you can do much better, does it?
— Steve C · Jun 8, 01:37 AM · #
Well, Conor, imagine for a second there was a program that played entirely by your rules. Imagine that it was an extremely popular program, and that it was funded by a separate tax that not only paid for the entire program, but actually had run a surplus for over 20 straight years. And imagine that, in response to concerns of a possible future deficit (obviously, not a current deficit, since, as above, it’s currently running a surplus), the citizens of this country overwhelmingly supported expanding the tax over cutting the program. Would you agree that in this miraculous case we should not attempt to cut this program? Have you figured out which real program I’m talking about here?
— Bo · Jun 8, 01:45 AM · #
“They want contradictory things, and they want something for nothing. They do genuinely want small government, and all the benefits thereof, but there is insufficient agreement about how to get there for it to happen politically.”
This assumes what needs to be proven, that Americans would drown their government in the bathtub if they could pull it off. (Steve C above also points out something I can’t tell if you believe is true or you are assuming everyone believes is true.) Perhaps I’m misreading what you mean by “small”, because you also assume that Americans would end the war on drugs if the Fed wouldn’t rent-seek over it. I really doubt that; CA Proposition 184 (a big additional to the tools of mass incarceration aspect of the war on drugs) passed initiative with like 75% of the vote. That doesn’t even get into the military budget – I could easily see “Americans” (which is an unwieldy term) voting to increase the size and decrease the civilian control of it and allow waterboarding and all kinds of other statist things.
Your America is more libertarian than the one I know growing up in the Midwest. Many Americans see the government as being able to take some of the rougher edges off a market economy. They also believe that strict market principles won’t provide the best service all the time, in say education or health care. They are motivated in large part by fairness, a notion that markets eat through like acid.
— Mike · Jun 8, 01:52 AM · #
“This is your general Hayek RTS thesis. What empirical evidence backs this up? I look around the world, and look at democracies that are generally identified as vibrant and free and see larger welfare states. I see none that has collapsed into any Hayekian RTS nightmare, ever.”
Look, Hayek wrote RTS about particular countries — his analysis was backward looking! And it wasn’t so much a large welfare state that defined his nightmare scenario as the consolidation of economic planning and power in the central government.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 8, 03:04 AM · #
Oh for pity’s sake conservatives are only against big government for thems-outside-their-tribe.
This is the party of cognitive dissonance, ‘membah?
— matoko_chan · Jun 8, 03:05 AM · #
Liberty for me, but not for thee.
Gravy for me, but not for thee.
That is conservatism.
Remember when McCain/Palin made the black-folk-welfare link in that campaign add?
Dr. Manzi said, McCain/Palin, the gift that keeps on giving.
— matoko_chan · Jun 8, 03:13 AM · #
Steve C wrote:
“…I look around the world, and look at democracies that are generally identified as vibrant and free and see larger welfare states. I see none that has collapsed into any Hayekian RTS nightmare, ever.
I don’t see why anyone ought to accept this kind of thing as a premise without the at least occasional accounting for how the real world is working out. There is clearly an allergy at TAS for the “European welfare state”. It’s undesirable on its face – it’s asserted, and doesn’t require further explanation, it’s a three-letter-phrase that ought to evoke horror.
But it sure seems to work! You can talk all day about the inefficiencies, but when it comes to nurturing a modern liberal democracy it doesn’t seem like you can do much better, does it?”
This quote shows exactly why it’s so difficult to discuss this issue. SteveC can’t or won’t admit the obvious: that the United States has outperformed all the European welfare states combined for the last 100 years. Now he will probably come back with statistics that show how I’m wrong, but I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who could show that I’m right. But to me it’s just common sense. Like it or not, the United States is the big dog. It’s so obvious, yet we take it for granted, to the point where we don’t actually see it anymore. It’s amazing how many people refuse to admit what an incredible experiment and experience this country has been. And if they can’t admit the obvious, that we are the biggest dog in the history of civilization, then they can’t move on to the next question, which is, why are we the big dog? It sure as hell isn’t because we’ve had a centrally planned economy and 10 percent unemployment (hello European Union).
— jd · Jun 8, 04:01 AM · #
It sure as hell isn’t because we’ve had a centrally planned economy and 10 percent unemployment
Check the paper recently?
— Freddie · Jun 8, 04:40 AM · #
Good post, Conor. Freddie:
Would you be in favor of a balanced budget amendment? Leave aside the practical matters and language fights. I get the feeling you would.
Anybody else get the intuition that a budget amendment — its national politics — could end up really mushing for the Republicans?
Here’s where I apply the science and say what the problem is: the problem is Republicans need to signal — Independents won’t court them unless they signal — the message “We can be trusted with spending.” If the Republicans really can be trusted, what remains is a signaling problem. And, as you know from reading Zahavi on ‘the handicap principle’, “every signal, sexual or other, should contain handicaps to enable the receiver to ascertain its reliability.” {emphasis mine]
A loud, united campaign to pass a more elegant version of the recent BBAs — elegance is key — well, it seems like it would meet Zahavi’s rules of “honest signaling.” Similarly, pedophiles who want to be trusted again need to self-castrate.
(If this is in Grand New Party or something, I apologize — just point me in the right direction).
— Sargent · Jun 8, 04:40 AM · #
jd
Yes, plus why would you want to move away from freedom? Who would willingly want to have a bureaucrat in charge of your financial future, or your healthcare for that matter? And yet we ponder on, and with the recent financial collapse it would seem there is just enough political leverage present to get it done. Troubling times indeed.
Anyway, I believe these are the essential codes you were looking for:
* Asterisk before and after a word will give you bold
_ underline before and after a word or phrase places it in italics
The red word Textile under the comment block below takes you to the Keys.
— nicholas · Jun 8, 04:55 AM · #
“Now he will probably come back with statistics that show how I’m wrong, but I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who could show that I’m right. But to me it’s just common sense. “
America did better because it must have done better – you’re right, I have nothing to add to that.
Also, we have 10% unemployment, but don’t let facts get in your way jd, you’re on a roll.
— Steve C · Jun 8, 05:21 AM · #
Conor,
I think your examples of “big government things that people don’t like but that happen anyway” aren’t very compelling. I’d be surprised if a national plebiscite would pass a law mandating that marijuana law be left up to the states. And see Yglesias on the Surprising Popularity of Farm Subsidies. Public sector unions are a good example of capture, but cost-wise they’re a drop in the bucket. Ask people if they want to cut the big stuff – social security, medicare, or defense, even in exchange for direct rebates, and you’ll get massacred at the polls.
— Trevor · Jun 8, 05:25 AM · #
“Look, Hayek wrote RTS about particular countries — his analysis was backward looking! And it wasn’t so much a large welfare state that defined his nightmare scenario as the consolidation of economic planning and power in the central government.”
Right, the doomsday framing of the book was of course Stalin’s Russia and Hiter’s Germany (authoritarian regimes that hardly came to power through incrementalism, btw). Hayek countered the prevailing wisdom that the Soviets had figured out a great new system and even if we don’t adopt Marxism, some sort of shift toward state planning ought to occur in the West.
It’s a great book because it lays out why total central planning is incompatible with a healthy economy. But American conservatives believe it (plus COL) lays out a self-evidently true and good proof of maximal economic liberty and spontaneous order uber alles.
His prediction – that the socialism practiced in England in the 40’s and 50’s was a dangerous path toward the sort of authoritarianism we saw in WW2 – turned out to be false. There is no Road To Serfdom (I’m still waiting for one example of a democracy overplanning itself into actual serfdom). Saying that a move away from supposed economic liberty in the US and toward a “european welfare state” is dangerous is simply not supported by the mountain of actual evidence – actual outcomes – we have since WW2. Saying that it is dangerous – i.e. there be dragons – rests wholly on bald assertion, libertarian and utilitarian faith. It’s what you’re supposed to think if you come up in the Hayek/Mises intellectual tradition, but it’s not the same thing as truth.
You may have a taste preference for American-style capitalism – that’s respectable (“we’re American, we just dont DO socialized medicine, period”)! Run 50 experiments in 50 states, and all that. But it’s just a taste preference. It’s strange that conservatives still expect everyone to accept as a premise Haykeian faith that a more robust welfare state leads to authoritarianism (or that it even makes us worse off).
— Steve C · Jun 8, 05:56 AM · #
“But it’s just a taste preference”
Actually, it’s more than taste, it’s a matter of one system being more effective at promoting human fourishing than another. I can tell you don’t spend much time in areas where the results of the welfare state are painfully obvious. Just because we still have a middle class that is not totally under the thumb of the state doesn’t mean that many aren’t hopelessly and demeaningly dependent on a welfare system that’s slowly draining production in this country. The only reason you haven’t seen more destruction from welfare policies is the fact that there is still some freedom left and the free market hasn’t been totally destroyed. If the state gains more power over free enterprise, you’ll see an acceleration of the negative effects. European countries have also tried to balance welfare and freedom so that freedom prevents the state from sinking — however, what you don’t see is what could be — much higher employment rates and a much higher standard of living for those caught in the welfare system. Dependency is demoralizing and dehumanizing, and not very tasteful.
— mike farmer · Jun 8, 11:12 AM · #
Look….what Trevor said.
Let’s imagine the refuglicans got some stones and actually crafted an intelligent experimental design to test Obama’s proposals on medicare, and presented it to Obama.
Their constituency would scream blue murder. AARP would be staging wheelchair and walker protests.
That is politics. It is disengenuous in the extreme to expect Obama to testdrive an unpopular program so he can take the double political hit….ticking off his base that is expecting action on nat’l heath like he promised. and angering the oldsters by reforming medicare. Plus I think you just want another Anger Whigga avenue of attack…..“OMG, Obama is killing medicare!! We warned you!!!! Repent!!”
Step on, repubs, you are punching way out of your weight class on this one.
The republicans just pay lip service to “small goverment” as one of their sacred Reagan memes.
They only really want small government for the other side.
— matoko_chan · Jun 8, 11:39 AM · #
Was Anger Wigga inspired by Bo’s comparison of right-wing talk Radio to rap music? I like it. I hope it catches on!
— Tony Comstock · Jun 8, 12:11 PM · #
Freddie and SteveC:
Both of you guys made a point of saying that I somehow had missed something by pointing out that we have a 10% unemployment rate. You have entirely missed the point.
First of all, that’s an extremely high and dangerous rate of unemployment for the United States. I’m assuming you agree with that. Though, if you like the European model, you may have already become comfortable with those kinds of rates.
Second, THAT KIND OF UNEMPLOYMENT IS TYPICAL ACROSS EUROPE EVEN IN GOOD TIMES!!! Check the paper in the last 30 years?
— jd · Jun 8, 12:25 PM · #
The comments about how the US also has 10% unemployment is a perfect example of the point I was making in my earlier post. Both Freddie and SteveC choose to ignore the longstanding fact that Europe has had much higher unemployment than the US. It’s the norm and it has been for a long time. I’ll bet they also ignore the fact that we have been subsidizing them by providing their military protection for, oh, 70 years or so.
— jd · Jun 8, 12:33 PM · #
1: @ Steve C. – this is one of the frustrating and most common errors when dealing with Hayek. There is an assumption that “social democracy” = socialism as understood by Hayek. Hayek was talking about a very specific set of practices and beliefs. In the preface to, IIRC, the second edition, he goes so far as to say that Western Europe, for the most part, had turned away from the path he had described, and that, while he had his share of problems with the “social democracy” that was emerging, he did not find it anywhere near as bad as the path he described in RTS.
2. @ Conor, Freddie, et al – It seems there needs to be a better distinction between “size of government” and “scope of government.” It is very much possible to have a government that is “large” in terms of its spending and levels of taxation, but comparatively limited in terms of its scope. Similarly, it is quite possible to have a government that is “small” but exceedingly powerful.
— Mark Thompson · Jun 8, 02:07 PM · #
Actually, it’s more than taste, it’s a matter of one system being more effective at promoting human fourishing than another.
I could pick any one of the comments from this thread— this is very typical of how this conversation goes, people who favor small government just asserting that America is a better place to live than many of these European social democracies, evidence free. But most of the European social democracies are in fantastic shape, and according to many of the metrics that we use for determining quality of life, ahead of the United States.
It’s just really hard to argue with people who think that the United States is ordained by god to be the best country ever.
— Freddie · Jun 8, 02:13 PM · #
Yup Tony, its purrfect.
I expand here….
i should give Bo props but I don’t remember where the comment was.
A little help? Anyone else remember which post?
— matoko_chan · Jun 8, 02:33 PM · #
“I could pick any one of the comments from this thread— this is very typical of how this conversation goes, people who favor small government just asserting that America is a better place to live than many of these European social democracies, evidence free. But most of the European social democracies are in fantastic shape, and according to many of the metrics that we use for determining quality of life, ahead of the United States.
It’s just really hard to argue with people who think that the United States is ordained by god to be the best country ever.”
Since you used my quote, I thought I’d respond to show how even more difficult it is to argue with someone who misreads and makes assumptions. Since you have provided no evidence, you are not in a position to complain about evidence, but if you want to start comparing systems we can. No where did I state America is ordained by God, and you probably won’t ever read a statement like that from me, since I’m an atheist. I was talking about systems, and in comparing systems, the systems which have had the least amount of regulation and the most economic freedom have created a higher standard of living, more stable employment, more innovation, more life-saving inventions, more inventions period, than systems burdened with welfare, regulations and central planning. This is not really contestable, but if you want to compare accomplishments, we can.
— Mike Farmer · Jun 8, 02:34 PM · #
the systems which have had the least amount of regulation and the most economic freedom have created a higher standard of living, more stable employment, more innovation, more life-saving inventions, more inventions period, than systems burdened with welfare, regulations and central planning. This is not really contestable, but if you want to compare accomplishments, we can.
OK, sure. How about life expectancy? Child mortality? Adjusted real income? Literacy? Access to health care? Educational attainment? Access to public transport? Median retirement age? Rates of infectious disease? Income equality?
the systems which have had the least amount of regulation and the most economic freedom
That’s true. Somalia is paradise on earth.
— Freddie · Jun 8, 02:40 PM · #
Mark T. – excellent size/scope point. This is what I’ve thought about regarding the term “limited” which doesn’t necessarily denote “small” but rather some sort of set of boundaries. In other words, “limited government” refers (and ought to refer) to scope much more than size…
— E.D. Kain · Jun 8, 03:21 PM · #
The term ‘small government’ is neutral, just like ‘inequality.’
Let’s say our standard is utility. Clearly, zero government is bad. (See Hobbes). Just as clearly, totalitarian government is bad. (See Hayek).
Let’s say an optimization-coordinate exists: given a particular internal and external environment there is a best-size (and -scope) of government, so that any deviation up or down (in size or scope) results in a diminution of overall utility (a Laffer curve). In this scenario, it is decidedly unhelpful to argue over ‘big government’ vs. ‘small government’.
Unless you’re saying ‘small government’ is a metaphysical good — and you probably shouldn’t — the above frame is the right one.
— Sargent · Jun 8, 05:43 PM · #
That said, it’s difficult for progressives to reconcile their trust in government with the American mythology. As a nation we were founded on suspicion — of government, of man, of power, of factions, of good intentions. It’d be nice to see that suspicion return as a central pillar of both parties.
— Sargent · Jun 8, 05:49 PM · #
Freddie:
Please. Somalia? That’s a comparison beneath contempt. Why don’t you try comparing Hong Kong with almost any other Asian country? Hong Kong has no natural resources and 50 years ago it looked like any other shanty town. Until China took over 10 years ago it had a standard of living on a par with any European country with a thriving middle class. Why did it prosper when a “Westernized” democracy like India has wallowed in squalor? The difference is economic freedom.
Also, you talk about comparing the “social democracies” (you just can’t say socialism, can you?) with the United States. Care to comment about the comparative unemployment rates of European countries vs. the US for the last 50 or 60 years? Care to comment about the fact that those social democracies are just now starting to reject the very things that you are espousing? Or that even Pravda can see what you guys refuse to see.
— jd · Jun 8, 06:06 PM · #
“OK, sure. How about life expectancy? Child mortality? Adjusted real income? Literacy? Access to health care? Educational attainment? Access to public transport? Median retirement age? Rates of infectious disease? Income equality?”
Ok, what about them? I propose that countries with the most amount of freedom and the least amount of central planning, under a capitalist system will be favorable in these areas.
the systems which have had the least amount of regulation and the most economic freedom
“That’s true. Somalia is paradise on earth.”
Now, you are being silly. We’re talking about a classic, liberal, limited government abiding by rule of law as compared to a more statist approach. talk about petty argumentation!
— Mike Farmer · Jun 8, 06:10 PM · #
I’m still curious as to whether the Freddies and the SteveC’s of the world can admit that the US has been and still is the Big Dog. Especially since I haven’t provided any “evidence” of the “metrics.” Just wondering. Care to answer the question? Is the US now or has it ever been the Big Dog? Answer carefully. This is definitely a gotcha kind of question.
— jd · Jun 8, 07:27 PM · #
Ok, what about them? I propose that countries with the most amount of freedom and the least amount of central planning, under a capitalist system will be favorable in these areas.
You propose wrong. Such things are easily researched. Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Australia and Canada (both of which have a much larger social safety net than the United States), the Netherlands— these countries exceed or match the United States in almost every metric generally used to measure quality of life. Ask Conor, he’ll tell you.
Care to comment about the comparative unemployment rates of European countries vs. the US for the last 50 or 60 years?
Higher unemployment is a much less debilitating problem when matched with a robust social safety net.
— Freddie · Jun 8, 07:45 PM · #
“Actually, it’s more than taste, it’s a matter of one system being more effective at promoting human fourishing than another. “
So is the claim that most of the rest of the Western democratic world does not promote “human flourishing”?
To be clear – conservatives claim that more statism will lead to disaster. That’s why statist healthcare solutions must be opposed. Those in favor of a little more statism are not arguing (or at least, I’m not arguing) that a public-run healthcare system will beat a private one in terms of efficiency (that’s an open question, frankly…it also depends on how you define “efficient”). There’s a general philosophical question of what a government should do, and America is very much the exception in this area, in the face of a world full of successful countries that have made a different choice.
— Steve C · Jun 8, 08:36 PM · #
Higher unemployment is a much less debilitating problem when matched with a robust social safety net.
As Foghorn Leghorn used to say, “There’s somethin’ kinda ewwwwwww about a boy who don’t hate high unemployment rates”
— jd · Jun 8, 08:44 PM · #
“You propose wrong. Such things are easily researched. Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Australia and Canada (both of which have a much larger social safety net than the United States), the Netherlands— these countries exceed or match the United States in almost every metric generally used to measure quality of life. Ask Conor, he’ll tell you.”
I’m not saying America is number one in all categories, so I don’t get your point. I’m really not talking about America, per se, since we are becoming statist, but rather a system of limited government and capitalism.
— Mike Farmer · Jun 8, 08:48 PM · #
Mark,
There’s an analytic distinction between size and scope, but I don’t think self-described limited government enthusiasts pay it much heed in practice. But see the continuing evolution of Will Wilkinson. I for on would welcome more tax and transfer and fewer regulatory fiats, so maybe there are some seeds of comity there.
— Trevor · Jun 8, 08:57 PM · #
Sure Americans hate big government, but it’s not clear that they hate it more than big business, at least right now.
Also, given the conservative’s stance on war, drugs, civil liberties and executive power, it’s kind of silly for conservatives to pretend to be in favor of small government. They’re just pro-big business, that’s all.
— Consumatopia · Jun 8, 10:17 PM · #
Trevor: I completely agree, but I think it’s always worth pointing out in these discussions. I tend towards thinking that the most relevant question is usually “what should government be involved with in the first place,” not “how much should government be involved in everything.” The European governments Freddie cites often have a rather limited scope in areas where our government has a rather sizable scope (if a relatively small size), and vice versa. As such, I tend to think that direct comparisons between the US and “Europe” (which is not a monolith to begin with, but that’s another issue), both positive and negative, usually wind up making little sense.
— Mark Thompson · Jun 8, 10:52 PM · #
AMERICANS DO CARE ABOUT SMALLER GOVERNMENT
but only in theory, not practice.
— matoko_chan · Jun 8, 11:28 PM · #
“Also, given the conservative’s stance on war, drugs, civil liberties and executive power, it’s kind of silly for conservatives to pretend to be in favor of small government. They’re just pro-big business, that’s all.”
As has been stated, it’s not small or large that matters, but, rather limited or, basically, unlimited. You might be right about many conservative being pro-big business, but some of us, who are not conservatives and propose limited government, do so because we think a powerful government is illiberal. The Democrats are just as much pro- big business, just their favored big businesses — I believe all corporate welfare should abolished, and it’s one reason I propose a limited government.
— mike farmer · Jun 9, 12:14 AM · #
It’s odd how “bureaucrat” has been coded to mean public sector, when bureaucratic behaviour is identical in public or private realms. (Bureau is just the French word for ‘office’)
What’s the big worry about government bureaucrats shuffling your health care paperwork? Do you think the insurance company bureaucrats are doing a great job?
— paul o · Jun 9, 01:16 AM · #
“I’d say the default should be: don’t pass any new program Americans aren’t willing to fund with higher taxes.”
Does that apply to wars, too? If so, let’s give it a try.
— MikeS · Jun 9, 01:59 AM · #
@ Mark Thompson , I think we’re both aware (though it’s usually a little too inside-baseball to make a point of) that there are a couple of distinct Hayek’s: the actual Hayek and the one American conservatives and libertarians at large have in their heads. One of them thought a robust welfare state was entirely acceptable, the other thought any expansion of government led toward Serfdom.
It’s almost as if none of them ever got past the title, and think the title of RTS is the world’s simplest self-contained argument (in fact one wonders what they’d think had they even read the preface, on real liberals). I’m still waiting for them to Go Galt.
@ jd, mike farmer, to a lesser degree Conor: You’ll be talking past everyone who has lived outside of the US or picks up a paper if your argument is simply something like: big government is worse for a country. America succeeds while other major democracies fail. It’s dangerous to go down the path of more state regulation and management of sectors the economy. It’s not healthy for a democracy to do so. Europeans and Japanese and others have it really bad.
These things are not true, and when people point it out, what we get is stronger and stronger assertion that they are. It’s as if you think displays of nativist faith are convincing somehow (?)
— Steve C · Jun 9, 02:21 AM · #
“As a nation we were founded on suspicion — of government, of man, of power, of factions, of good intentions. It’d be nice to see that suspicion return as a central pillar of both parties.”
Sargent, I’d settle for either…
— Erik Siegrist · Jun 9, 02:30 AM · #
Steve,
I’m going to let this rest because it’s obvious that anyone who thinks that a defense of limited government and capitalism (and I’m not saying Conor or jd are promoting limited government or captialism, I’m speaking for myself, since you included me))rests only in a reading of Hayek and nativist faith is either disingenuous and applying a reductionist tactic for diversion’s sake or is ignorant of the rich history of libertarian thought. I understand the statists’ views that an interventionist government is necessary for society to realize justice and equality, and the idea that liberal-minded representatives can regulate capitalism and provide a safety net through redistribution with no ill consequences, but you obviously don’t understand libertarian ideas which claim a moral stance regarding liberty, voluntary associations, non-intervention, property rights, perosnal freedoms, charity, free trade, spontaneous order, individual rights, rule of law and equal protection under the law. Tibor Machan is probably the clearest modern voice advancing libertarian thought, because he expands ideas like spontaneous order to include reason, judgement and purpose regarding individual choices, thus adding a moral element. But when I see commenters like you reduce it all down to a cartoon version with the smear of “faith”, I have to wonder what’s the motive — is it deliberate, or do you not understand the ideas?
— mike farmer · Jun 9, 04:02 AM · #
I’d settle for either…
Absolutely me too.
— Sargent · Jun 9, 04:46 AM · #
Mike, you’re asking me if I disagree with motherhood and apple pie. Nobody in the American mainstream doubts, say, the value of spontaneous order – we all claim innovation and dynamism and Hayek. Nobody thinks that you put universal healthcare in place consequence-free, but then very few people think “zero consequences” (whatever that means) ought to be the bar.
And I hope you don’t think the status quo is a zero-consequence situation – on the contrary, the burden is on defenders of a healthcare system in a modern rich democratic state that leaves so many without basic health services to answer for why they resist moving to a model that works (I don’t just mean, works for you).
— Steve C · Jun 9, 06:19 AM · #
“Mike, you’re asking me if I disagree with motherhood and apple pie.”
No, I asked if you understood libertarian ideas, and, if so, why you were reducing it to a misreading of Hayek and “nativist faith”.
“Nobody in the American mainstream doubts, say, the value of spontaneous order – we all claim innovation and dynamism and Hayek.”
Are you sure you’ve consulted everyone on this?
“Nobody thinks that you put universal healthcare in place consequence-free, but then very few people think “zero consequences” (whatever that means) ought to be the bar.”
Who said anything about zero-consequence as the bar? And why did you use quotation marks as if someone did say it?
“And I hope you don’t think the status quo is a zero-consequence situation – on the contrary, the burden is on defenders of a healthcare system in a modern rich democratic state that leaves so many without basic health services to answer for why they resist moving to a model that works (I don’t just mean, works for you).”
I’m not sure why you are focusing on healthcare, but I never stated I support the status quo in healthcare which is heavily regulated by government. In fact, I think it’s ludicrous that after Medicaide and Medicare, anyone would want to give control to government. That’s like asking Bush to be an ambassador to Iraq. No, my solutions to healthcare wouldn’t involve government. I’ve spoken to everyone, but I can’t say they all agree. Okay, I am really dropping it now — thanks for the conversation.
— mike farmer · Jun 9, 11:11 AM · #
I am desperately sorry that a Balanced Budget Amendment wasn’t put into play in the late 1990’s. This would have deprived Bush the opportunity to pump $5 Trillion in borrowed money into the economy and claim credit for the temporary rise in GDP that resulted.
It took tremendous courage for Clinton and his bipartisan congress to raise taxes without giving an equal rise to services. It took cowardice for Reagan, Bush1, and Bush2 to lower taxes without giving an equal cut in services.
Voters rewarded the cowardice and punished (although gently – Gore just ‘barely’ lost 2000) the courageous, a lesson not lost on Obama. The blame for deficit goes to any voter who rewarded cowardly behavior under Reagan, Bush Sr., or Bush Jr.
— JohnJay60 · Jun 9, 03:52 PM · #