gov vs liberties

Or you can recognize that in common usage the terms bigger and smaller government can be understood to have a colloquial meaning in the world of US politics. In addition, there can be counter examples that allow something to survive as a general principle. No one is saying that every time an additional dollar is spent your liberties shrink (or that for each dollar not spent your liberties grow), but rather as commonly understood, "big government" results in less personal freedom.

 

What you are talking about though is conventional wisdom as in terms of a popular belief among Americans. While yes its conventional wisdom that a bigger government results in less personal freedom in many cases though conventional wisdom is wrong.

 

Well, since you are talking colloquial meanings of US politics, do you think blacks in America agree that 'big gov' = less freedom? It seems to me, almost the inverse relationship exists?

 

This poll doesn't make sense without defining things.

Civil liberty is by definition the power to make a personal free choice with regard to rights and responsibilities without control or interference of the government.

So the size of the government is not necessarily the right indicator.

The correct indicator is how much power the government has. Size is often a determining factor in how much power government exercises

civil= citizen

liberty= freedom to make personal choice for responsibilities and rights

historically as size of governments increase civil liberties decrease

also historically as size of power of government increases (monarchy, dictatorships) civil liberties decrease

 

As I and others pointed out though that isn't always the case particularly in the US. Under a small and weak Federal government we had slavery and only white males could vote.

 

The problem with libertarianism is you will replace the "tyranny" of the "government" with the tyranny of corporations.

All the civil liberties in the world will not help you when the corporate masters tell you to dance.

I'll take my chances on the guys I can vote out of office.

 

Although you could always quit buying stuff too.

 

I don't think that's a universally held view even in the US Libertarian Party. But...

The problem with libertarianism is that it isn't libertarianism . The term has a very different meaning in the US than it has anywhere else (other than maybe to Pinochet-era Chile).

The word came into use in France in the 19th century, if I'm not mistaken, because it was dangerous to call yourself an anarchist. That's still pretty much what it means outside America. Emma Goldman called herself a libertarian, as did a lot of early radical trade unionists and IWW people.

So the next time someone tells you "Oh, I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian," you can say, "Right on man, property is theft!"

 

Just because the government could be termed small 150 years ago, as was the population in comparison the power to deny liberties due to race should not have been held by the government.

The problem of slavery was a denial of equal rights to all. This is implied in liberty. It was ever person's responsibility to end slavery- including the government. John Q. Adams fought fiercely in Congress to abolish slavery.


The power to enslave, and control is the power of government. Liberty requires equality and responsibility. Liberty must be for all or it is not liberty.

The issue of the thread is does government power decrease civil liberty.
That is why I said there should be a definition, because big government is used to represent the power of the government.

The issue is how much power and control should a government have over the entire citizenry to carry out free choice in their resposibilities and protect basic rights.


Freedom is not the power to do whatever anyone wants to do.
Freedom is the power to personally make free choices to fulfill responsibilities and protect rights.


Freedom requires self-goverance.

If there is not adequate self government by individuals then dictatorship is inevitible.

The smallest government could be a brutal King or dictator that controls military power.

It is the power of government that is dangerous.

The correct question to answer I think would be as government grows larger how much power does it gain?

 

I over simplified, also the problem with slavery is that it is morally wrong and it denies God given rights to all, and it is racist.

Slavery is wrong.

 

rhester,

I think as governments get bigger they don't necessarily get more powerful...they get more inefficient and more beholden to the deep-pocketed interests that feed them, be they FDR's White house or George W. Bush's, Tammany Hall, Stalin's Soviet Union, or the City of Corpus Christi.

I also feel the same way about large corporations that grow to a point where they are beholden to shareholders over their employees or the quality of their products.

 

Good point, certainly a government can grow itself even into collapse.

But in the context of civil liberty or individual freedoms (that is the context I am using anyways) the more control held by the government for individual responsibilities and rights, it logically follows the less is held by the individual.

I was trying to make the distinction that goverance by government and goverance by individual were two distinct controls.

 

A simple poll.

If someone sees this issue as a simple yes or no, does this mean their intelligence is subnormal?

Just a yes or no to honor the OP.

"yes", but, maybe just a brainwashed conservative. Sorry I tried to answer just yes or no.

 

Corporations are and should be beholden to shareholders over their employees and certainly over the quality of their products. If the board are not acting in the best interest of the shareholders, they are failing in their duties.

 

Sure, which why if I don't trust a government to look after my best interests, I sure don't expect a multi-national corporation to.

 

The big banks showed us that when corporations become very large they tend to be beholden to their senior execs rather then their shareholders. A little fiduciary duty towards the shareholders might have spared us the mess of the last year.

Carry on.

 

and if I were a billionaire banker held at knifepoint and asked why I had gambled so much on risky debt, my answer would be that I was taking calculated risks only to grow the balance sheet, and by virtue of that, my stock price.

The term "too big to fail" still really bothers me and does plenty to make me laugh at Objectivists that use Adam Smith's name in vain. Whether we are talking about executives ior traders (it seems offensive to call them "investors") the goal is ultimately quick profits and nothing more.

And government is the same way, looking for gains in public opinion to protect incumbency. Neither are concerned about providing the best service for the best benefit to the people they employ or serve.