[ExI] How Big is the Ideal Government? was Re: 78 percent don't trust big government -- well, DUH!

[samantha]

Kevin Freels wrote:
> 
> 
>  >In some sense the size of government is necessary for the checks and 
> balances of a parliamentary form of government to operate.\

Come again?  The only thing necessary is for the different forms to be 
equivalent functional size to perform the checks and balances.  The 
smaller one portion is the smaller the others should be also.

  Sure
> dictatorships are more efficient than >beauracracies but what does 
> efficiency matter when the aims of the dictator are self serving and 
> corrupt? 

Two questionable assumptions:

1) that this is the case, that dictatorships are more efficient.  Please 
point me to the dictatorship that has proven itself more efficient over 
any reasonable length of time;

2) Malevolence, except toward freedom, does not seem required in order 
to be a dictator.  There have been many dictators that started out with 
  declared (and often admired at the time) positive intent.  It didn't 
matter what the intent was much usually though.

Better to let them waste money holding commitee meetings on how
> best to >change lightbulbs than have the whim of a madman start a war or 
> something. In addition, I am somewhat skeptical about what the "size of 
> government" really means. If you are simply >talking about the absolute 
> number of federal employees, then it is natural for it to rise along 
> with the population growth of the country overall.

It far outstripped relative growth of population in the last 100 years. 
  And that also assumes that there is some legitimate per-capita use for 
government.

> The current federal 
> payroll according >the Bureau of Labor and Statistics is currently about 
> 2.8 million or about 0.9% of the U.S. population.

I am certain that figure is much to low.  What year and which person 
receiving a government paycheck are included?  Troops, state and local 
as well as federal workers?  Fire, police, etc where not private?  All 
must be included that paid out of government fund (almost always from 
either taxation or increasing debt).




  This figure is dwarfed
> by those employed by state and local governments (19.7 >million).
>>http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm
>

Yes.  You didn't think I was talking only about the federal government 
(though I think the above undercounted even that), did you?

> Some really good points here. I certainly prefer the "big" government we 
> have to the smaller "governments" of Somalia, Congo, and other such 
> places. Although government slows capitalism, I'm certain that's not an 
> entirely bad thing.

How so?  What do you think capitalism is?  Do you think that is what we 
really have now?


  I think the key is to create an environment where
> the people with money feel comfortable investing it.

Getting the government out of the market would make them *much* more 
comfortable.


  A big bloated
> government that can't move very quickly to change anything at all and is 
> shackled by it's own bureaucracy is much safer than one where some twit 
> can get some crazy idea and make drastic changes quickly. 

You are missing something crucial.  The government gobbles up about 50% 
of everything.  Despite having done so we are in debt to almost 87% of 
the entire GDP.  The government is unarguably too big and bloated as it 
is destroying the country economically.  It also is too big because it 
is involved and regulates much too much of everyone's life.  It has also 
promised much much more than it can actually deliver over the next few 
decades.  There is no argument that it is out of control in size, 
function and costs.


I don't recall
> that ever being considered in the frequent debates about lilbertarianism. 
> 

That's because most of that argument is set on misunderstood or 
misapplied concepts and shaky assumptions.

- s