The Scope...

 If you were to ask a Republican or a Democrat about what they feel the proper scope of government should be, the answers I have found almost always depend on who exactly is running the government. When it was Bush the Younger, the Republicans supported an increase in authority while the Democrats cried “bloody murder”; whereas, now that it's Obama issuing similar policies, the Democrats support it while the Republicans cry out that “it's the end of days!”




However, the problem is that, besides a few ideological points, the two parties have essentially the same mantra concerning the authority of the federal government as well as the fact that, once you get beyond the ideological differences, their theory of governance is strikingly similar. Then there is the commonly held idea that a 3^rd party vote is essentially throwing your vote away even though everyone, as well as their mother, bitches about the two major parties. This is because whether you vote for a Democrat or for a Republican, you're voting for the different side of the same coin; whereas voting for a 3^rd party is like voting for the coin to land standing-up on it's edge. The odds of them winning are slim to nil; but it's not the party's fault, the fault belongs to the voters.




Anyway.. Talking points aside. I'm not going to spew to you the normal Libertarian “anti-big government” points-of-view. Y'know, like how government bureaucracy is always less efficient than free market, how government bureaucracy sucks the life force out of the middle class, how government bureaucracy empowers the racist and homophobic, how government bureaucracy has short sighted good intentions, how Keynesian economic policies have created long term harm, etc... I'm not going to do that. Even though I believe all of those things, I think that it's improper to argue those values because, as of right now, the Libertarian point-of-view is still largely theoretical....




In fact, I'm going to assume that everything that government has done is either good (or) done with good intention. I'll hypothetically adopt BOTH the Republican view under Bush AND the Democrat view Obama in the last 13 years. Shit, I'll even adopt the Republican views under Bush the Elder and the Democrats view under Clinton (going back 25 years). Everything that was done was necessary to improve our society. The surgical strikes and wars? Yeah, they eliminated threats before they hit us. DOMA? Well, yeah, duuh, gay people....The Patriot Act? Yeah, that made us safer. The surveillance under NSA authority? If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear!!! The Bush-Obama bail-outs? Hell yeah, that's great economic policy! A national deficit? A necessity for government to improve our lives. The Federal Reserve Bank? The ONLY contractor for minting our fiat currency!!


Of course, that should seem ridiculous to everyone. But for our reasoning, please accept all of those assertions as (hypothetically) true.




Indeed hypothetically, EVERYTHING the government does has the potential for improving our society. I won't argue with that. There's been a number of things the government has done at least semi-correctly, and I'll get to that later...




However, for our purposes here, we assume that EVERYTHING our government has done is ultimately beneficiary, EVERYTHING our government has done is efficient, and EVERYTHING our government has done is with good intention. I will not deviate from this assumption....




But! Wait! Even with those assumptions, there is still one glaring fact that, I think, haunts everyone at some level! It's the fact that every single instance of tyranny began with a construct of centralized government. There has not been single a case of book burning, religion banning, stifling of free speech, or genocide that has been concocted by a weak, feeble government. Think about it.. How could a weak federal government do those things? They can't. If they could, would you really consider them to be “weak”? Or “small in scope”? A government that can do these things, or similar acts of oppression, necessarily has to embody one or more aspects of a large, centralized federal apparatus. In many instances, this concept reflects itself in issues such as religious division, racial discrimination, media directives, market control, conquest of territory, mass murder, etc, but ultimately boils down to a strong, central government capable of such widely encompassing measures on a national scale. By definition, a federal government limited in its authority is literally incapable of accomplishing any of those aims, even if it is their ultimate objective of power.....


The Mongolian Empire? Check
The Roman Empire? Check
The British Empire? Check
Nazi-Germany? Check
Mussolini's Italy? Check
The Japanese Empire? Check
The Vietkong? Check
Castro's Cuba? Check
The Soviet Union? Check
The Middle Eastern “terrorist” Religious Regimes? Check
….the list goes on...but did any of those strike you as as “weak, feeble” federal governments over their respective peoples???




(Now for a disclaimer – I am, by NO MEANS, attempting to imply that Bush OR Obama were or are attempting to establish any sort of despotism. I am NOT implying that any particular presidential administration seeks to burn books or commit genocide. I am NOT a crazy conspiracy theorist. I am NOT on either side and I am NOT a “tea-partier”. I am merely attempting to demonstrate to you, the reader, the logic from which I derived my own personal philosophy.)




Now, for my point – with all the previous considered... Even if you assume that EVERYTHING under Bush AND Obama have been good things, wise changes, and positive progress... you still must acknowledge the fact that, at some level, every increase in the authority of the federal government naturally correlates to an increase in the odds that we will some day deal with the oppression of a tyranny. Am I saying that's where we're headed? Not necessarily, I'm speaking merely in terms of Vegas odds... It might happen, it might not... if it does happen, it could be 200 years from now or 20 years from now... but that's not my point...




The way we, as a nation, have dealt with our social issues has been through the means of mandate and fiat. I hear so many people complain about it -- yet they crumple like a piece of paper at the face of a diktat. Every time we allow an increase in government authority, we're also allowing an increase in the ODDS that we'll end up regretting it. Even if that authority is doing socially positive things, we should be wary of the chance that the law will be used against us negatively. Openly and blindly allowing the government to take over ANY aspect of our lives is naively vicarious, whether it be a national security issue or a humanitarian issue (such as healthcare) – even if you happen to accept that a government can deliver healthcare in a more fair manner than the free market, you still are accepting the infinitesimal increase in the odds that, down the line, you'll end up with a hard despotism. The question then becomes whether or not we should accept the benefits of government mandate over the increase in odds of future oppression? Is it really worth it?




In the case of healthcare, the question really becomes – is it really worth everyone being covered by insurance if - down the line - the government (NOT you) will determine what medical treatments your children WILL take? (Notice the difference between the word “will” and “may”)... That is the difference between voluntary action (liberty) and compulsory action (mandate)... Once we allow the government to make those sorts of decisions, those are the sorts of things that COULD happen, in theory..



Why, exactly, does the government feel the need to mandate healthcare? Is anything cheaper (or more fair to the worker)? Why does the government feel the need to mandate education? Why does it feel the need to mandate a thousand other things, things you and I haven't even yet considered? Does your life feel any better? Or safer? Do you feel any richer? Do you feel any closer to the “1%”? Are you still a part of the “99%”? Do you really believe that impoverished people will be any less poor 10 years from now? And why do you believe whatever it is you believe? ------- those are the questions that you should be asking yourself...





Essentially, every time we accept an increase in the scope of government, we're also accepting an increase in the odds that it will turn against us. Or that it will do something “subversive”, to which we would never be privy. Yeah, there's a lot of positive things that the government provides for us that it wouldn't be able to do if we kept it flaccid and puny. Yet every time the government increases its authority we're also acknowledging an “acceptable” increase of the odds that it could end very badly.. Soo the question thus becomes: How much social benefit are we willing to receive in exchange for the natural consequences of increasing the odds of developing a despotism and oppression?