What does 'big government' mean? Does it mean building up the largest defense program in the world? Does it mean passing laws to forbid same sex marriage? Does it mean legislating what decision women can do with their bodies when pregnant? Does it mean inventing a new school voucher program that would require a new agency to track? The term 'big government' is a made-up term that doesn't actually mean very much because it is a vague term so you can attribute whatever meaning suits your political ideology. Both parties have a vested interest in purpetuating 'big government' ...but only to suit their own agenda. If you want smaller government, would you approve cutting the defense budget by 50%? How about cutting the transportation budget by 50% so our roads would fall into disrepair? How about cutting the CDC's budget by 50%? Or maybe we cut the FAA's budget eliminating the air traffic controllers? Or how about we cut FDIC so our banks are not insured? Or maybe we get rid of the SEC so Wallstreet is completely unregulated? Those guys can self regulate, right? This talk about the evils of 'big government' is nothing more than a propoganda tool to brainwash our country.
i would be content if we didnt give trilliions away in bailouts (bush AND obama are both guilty), didnt go around starting unnecessary wars based on lies and didnt go around spending billions and billions on foreign interventionism like propping up other regimes (pakistan and israel to name two). as far as im concerned government expansion and diminishing liberties go hand in hand. bush expanded the government more than any other president and we also saw a ramping up of the police state/clamping down on civil liberties. patriot act? military commissions act? tsa? department of homeland security? authorization of torture? indefinite detention/rendition? warrantless wiretapping?
for this poll, i should have phrased the statement: the larger federal governments grow, the number of personal/civil liberties decrease.
What do you think women in Muslim dominated Afghanistan feel about big government? Their rights are severely limited due to religious rules and lack of any functional government. Conversely, Denmark's citizens pay >50% to income tax. They get off work at 4pm and have 100% of education paid for from infant day care through college. Also 100% of health care is paid for. In a recent interview I saw, they define "Success" as not income or material possessions but of living a creative and happy lifestyle. A recent poll found them to be the happiest citizens in the world I'm sure I could give you examples of the EXACT opposite too (Nazi's). I'm simply pointing out that "Big Government" and civil liberties are two completely different concepts. You could find hundreds of examples to both support AND counter this concept ...which proves my point. The connection of those two concepts is nothing more than a propaganda tool. Don't believe the hype. Think for yourself.
I don't think this can be reduced to a simple yes/no answer. The most commonly heard argument is that a larger government is more likely to reduce personal liberties as it is more impersonal and less accountable than a smaller government. In many cases though a smaller government also can clamp down on liberties and also be more corrupt than a larger government. Consider in American history discrimination and corruption have largely been more prevalent at the smaller level of government where local bias and prejudices tend to dominate. In fact many of the arguments for States Rights have been couched as preserving local bias over a more general view that you would find among the country as a whole. So a larger Federal government ended slavery and did away with Jim Crow laws while smaller weaker state governments fought to preserve them.
Are you asking if the statement is true or false? If so then the statement is false. B does not necessarily follow from A, and in many cases the opposite is true.
Excellent post sir! You are quite right. We need to get past this empty rhetoric about "big government" and start talking about appropriate government and effective government, etc.
fair point. cant argue w/ anything you said. didnt mean to sound so absolutist in my post - i was focused on several specific instances of big government trampling over civil liberties (patriot act, department of homeland security, tsa, ect), but it is also true that there is need for some element of a government in order to maintain order and protect the rights of all. just b/c im against totalitarianism doesnt mean im into anarchy.
by this logic, Afghanistan, has a very small gov't...therefore has the ideal amount of personal freedom. Hmmm, spurious logic huh? I think the whole notion of "big gov't" is a big fat deception.
do you believe that it is possible for government to get too big? i have a hard time believing the founding fathers would get behind the patriot act, the 2006 military commissions act, the f***ing t.s.a., department of homeland security, the ability of the government to indefinitely detain you w/out charges, the right of the government to use evidence gained under torture against you, ect... thinking about the initial question though, i wouldnt necessarily say big government causes a loss of civil liberties, but there is definitely a correlation b/t the two.
Yes, just look at the gov't in India...it's literally was paralyzing the country. There's a massive difference in streamlining a gov't and making it more efficient and for saying there are too many gov't agencies. I think the founding fathers agreed on a few things - one that all men are equal, and that two the role of gov't was to promote life, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness. I look at our gov't through those lenses. Is an initiative, a law, a policy, a dept, or whatever contributing to these things? We need a military to protect the homeland, and a dept of homeland security sure. But how big does it need to be? That answer is based on what is necessary to provide safeguards against things like hurricanes, terrorist attacks, and flu epidemics. We need an FDA to ensure people are'nt being fed dangerous substances. You need a DMV. A postal office. These are huge massive gov't agencies. It's not about big versus small gov't, it's about what is necessary to fulfill the vision of what our founding fathers dreamed of. The reason I support a public option is because I think part of everyone having an equal chance is that they have a fair shot at being healthy from birth. Why do people fight so hard against abortion if you are going to condemn a new born to crappy health care???? Makes no sense to me. I am against affirmative action because I don't think it encompasses the original vision of the founding fathers. What I do support is an educational system that rekonizes that not all kids are going to go to college and that at some point you have to equip these kids with a workable career, and that high school should allow for poor performing students to have the option to take up apprenticeships and learn a trade to prepare them for adult life. Is that socialism, is that big gov't? Or is it just common sense? Is it just providing opportunities for people to find prosperity and happiness? What about the Patriot Act? Does our gov't need to ability to listen in on private citizens communicating to foreign entities in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan? Not without a warrant. Not without reasonable doubt. That's the spirit of our founding fathers. And I am certain they would be horrified with the idea of warrantless wiretapping no matter what the threat. There are no hard rules....and that's exactly my point. It's not as simple as more or less gov't. As we saw, when the gov't deregulated the financial markets, it created a disaster. The whole system collapsed. Deregulation doesn't always encourage prosperity. Regulation doesn't always protect the people. There is no one answer. anyone who says there are againt big gov't doesn't know what they are for or what they are against. They are drinking koolaid or teabagger non-sense.
It only takes one counter-example to show that the proposition, "bigger government -> fewer liberties," is false. Many of those examples have been given in this thread. Therefore, everybody voting "yes" in this poll needs to take a logic class.
I have a radical take on this theory. More power for religious institutions=less individual human rights. Let's see... Sharia law. Middle Ages Europe. Caste system in India. etc. etc.
Are you surprised by the responses? I get the feeling that you were looking for a few more folks choosing yes.
