Exjackly

What does an ideally minimal government look like?  We can look to European governments for an opposing view where the state enforces controls on individuals and businesses alike while owning in some cases certain services.

We can look to many developing and mostly developed countries ranging from India to Mexico and including several sub-Saharan African countries.  These countries fail to permit all of their citizens equal rights and in some of them outright government corruption worsens the situation.

Even the American state is a poor example as over the years the importance of individual responsibility has been subsumed by the steady approach of a nanny state and the rising political value of businesses and coalitions and the decreasing effectiveness of the individual in the political process.

It is time to rebuild our government into something that is small while protecting our country and ensuring individual freedoms.  Yes, it will be a significant shake-up of the status quo.  But as Ben Cohen (yes of Ben&Jerry's) shows, it is doeable.  He isn't the only one, so rest assured this is not an empty exercise.

I am not a Libertarian, although I agree with a number of their ideals.  As of now though, it is their extremists who garner the most coverage.  Being an extremist is not the way to make change happen, although they do play a role in starting efforts for change.  Think back to various protest groups whose viewpoints have become mainstream - women's suffrage, anti-segregation, even the American Revolution.  By themselves, the individual acts that brought notice to the protesters and movement were not enough to make the change happen.  It was when the majority took heed and accepted the cause that change occurred.

The extreme Libertarians are in that position right now.  They are getting notice and more followers.  Yet the most extreme views still go many time further than a plurality of this country is willing to accept.  Things like the complete legalization of drugs (all drugs), abolition of the income tax, and the elimination of the Federal Reserve is beyond reasonable expectations.

The principles, especially as they can be backed by the writings of such notable historical figures as Banjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, are sound.  Their contributions to the founding of our country and their visions for its progression are among the best examples that we have available to us.

Thomas Jefferson put it well with:

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

George Washington:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Benjamin Franklin

The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.

Note, that while there is a lot of concern over a small government, there are no serious suggestions of eliminating the government.  Especially in today's global environment, the elimination of the Federal government would be a mistake and a tragedy.  Even mostly emasculating it would prove more harmful than helpful.

Instead, what needs to be done is to make changes to reduce the size of the Federal Government in meaningful ways.  This means migrating as many reponsibilities as possible (education, many health and welfare operations) completely too the states - including setting standards and choosing how to fund them.

There are areas where a national entity will be more effective and efficient than one that is run by the individual states.  That does not mean that it should be run by the Federal Government.  Instead, the States themselves should be empowered to develop cooperative institutions - funded and governed by the states individually - to take advantage of that economy of scale.

Those areas that are legitimately the Federal Government's reponsibility - without the massive overuse of the instate commerce clause - ought to be streamlined and minimized.

Making these change is not without winners and losers.

Individual responsibility will play a much bigger role.  Those who are looking for somebody else to make decisions for them will face a real chance of falling through the cracks.    Let me rephrase.  Those who do not take responsibility for themselves will fall behind and will never catch up.

There is another major category of losers from this change.  Those who benefit most from a large, powerful central government: lobbyist and their employers.  No longer would it be possible to get the same huge contracts and broad legislative action done by working with a handful of people.  Instead, 51 or more legislative bodies will need to be approached and convinced.  The opposition will be able to have more of an impact, with legislators living closer to the affected citizens and much easier to be reached.

Winners will be those individuals that plan ahead, are willing to stand up and be heard, and who will take advantage of their rights.  By recognizing that the right to the pursuit of happiness does not guarantee reaching, these individuals will continue to put in the effort required to work for their goals.  Many of these citizens will reach those goals.

Their success will be more than individual accomplishment,  Like the Fords, Rockefellers, Boeings, Waltons, Trumps and other imperfect leaders of America they will pull others along.  Our country has been built by hands like thiers guiding millions of hands like ours.  One man's vision can consume tens, hundred, even thousands of others to achieve.

These will be the winners of such a change.  The individuals with the vision and will to keep our country moving forward.  Their success will outweigh the decreased ability of multination corporations to push their own agenda forward.

Is the tradeoff worth it? It has to be.  As things are progressing now, we are flirting with national disaster in slow motion.  An expanded central government that spends beyond its means, encourages inflation and favors large corporations over individuals threatens to end the Pax Americana just as the Pax Romana eventually ended in the decline and fall of that great government.

It is difficult to argue that America needs to change to avoid disaster.  How it needs to change is the more difficult question.  A return to a weak federal government and strong state governments offers the most hope for long term stability and continued success of our nation.

As always, anybody who wishes to agree or disagree (respectfully!!) is invited to post a comment and join the discussion.  How do you think the US needs to change?  Do you agree thatthe move to greater individual responsibility is the best way to go?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Nuke the Fridge may become this decades equivalent of "jumping the shark".  Now, don't get me wrong - Indiana Jones is an immensely entertaining series of movies.  Yes, it asks you to suspend disbelief regularly and just watch for the entertainment bit.  However, nuking the fridge was so over the top

Movies and TV series are not the only places that can Nuke the Fridge.  Individuals can do it (jump the couch).  Companies can destroy their credibility and business with a single over the top action (Arthur Anderson).

Governments are not immune to this.  When a government fails spectacularly the results are not as giggle-worthy as Harrison Ford stepping out of the fridge with a mushroom cloud in the background.  A government failure of that magnitude produces a lot of pain and suffering internally and is seldom quickly resolved.

Zimbabwe is an example of a current such crisis.  A failed land redistribution effort has led to years of hyperinflation with no end in sight.  It does not always have to be a quick detonation.  Japan suffered a real estate decline for more than a decade.  This dragged down their economy for a significant amount of time.  The country still has not fully recovered.

My worry is that there is an acceleration in the US government's travel towards the same situation.  Rising federal budgets lead to increased deficit spending and larger debt burdens.  Despite that, entitlement programs are being expanded and new ones proposed.  Tax cuts and credits are offered by politicians like candy.

If this trend continues, like a tsunami, eventually everybody will be able to see it coming and nobody will be able to do anything about it.

The difference is that the US government has not Nuked the Fridge yet.  We do not have a tsunami appearing on the horizon.  There is still time to prevent it and ways to make the pull-back not as painful.  But changes need to start happening soon.  Who is going to ignite and guide those changes?

As we go into the general election for this year, I am afraid that there is not a viable candidate who is even going to try.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

One of the things that keep coming up in my posts is that I feel the Federal government is too big and intrusive.  From a simple financial viewpoint it is either too big or we are not taxed enough.  The government needs to be able to supply the services it does using just the resources available to it.

In that respect, our federal government should operate no differently than we do.  While it is acceptable to occasionally spend more than we make, we need to save up to replace the extra spending or have paid for the 'surge' out of savings that we already have.  Constant deficit spending is bad for us and is bad for our government.

I have recently come across the website for a minor political party which seems to have a similar viewpoint: The Populist Party.  If you view their basic platform and self explanation, they are actually arguing for politicians at the national level to voluntarily reduce their own power to create a smaller national government and to strengthen state and local governments.  The best part is that they argue for personal responsibility and freedom where it does not interfere with others freedoms.

What do you think about this?  I am going to look into them further myself.  Hopefully the surface view holds upon further review and they are truly mainstream enough that there will be hope of helping them become a major party (because why should we be limited to two parties?)

I definitely see how they could be a fringe group whose idealism and fanaticism far exceeds what is useful or reasonable.  At the same time, they could also be a group whose view can be accepted and adopted by Americans across this great country.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!