Myth: The Government that Governs Least, Governs Best

To comment on this video, go to: http://beingism.org/community/?q=node/13

A man dressed as Paul Bunyan explains why less government is not always better.

Some economic conservatives talk as if government were the real problem behind most of the larger issues in society. But if laws were the basic cause of restricted freedom, helping people to be free would just be a matter of getting rid of laws. Its not hard to see why a totally lawless society is not one where more people are free. Notably, most libertarians prefer to get rid of as much government as benefits them; they are rarely in favor of abolishing social programs that defend the interests of the wealthy, such as the military and the police force.

The grain of truth to this slogan is that an ideal government is no bigger than it needs to be in order to meet societal needs; but of course, this is merely to say that waste is undesirable and that government should be used to help rather than harm.

The real point of privatizing systems for meeting human needs—in other words, removing such systems from the public sphere—is to make accountability impossible. It's fairly clear who benefits from this, as well as who loses.

http://www.beingism.org

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• atheism
• atheist
• charity
• compassion
• empathy
• ethics
• happiness
• logic
• moral
• philosophy
• rationality
• reason
• religion
• socialism

[Infantry9]

Considering the fact that the government has actually caused quite a bit of trouble for the people like how it basically created the subprime mortgage crisis by offering to backup any subprime mortgage deal through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I wouldn't call the idea of a government that governs least, governs best a myth. Also, there's the fact that the federal government has been too inefficient and clumsy to get anything right and I speak from personal experience involving a waiver process.

[Beingism]

@Infantry9 We would argue that we need to focus on creating effective government (at whatever size it needs to be in order to be effective) instead of talking about how to make it smaller, as if smaller automatically meant better.

[Loserido]

Ever heard the name "Murray Rothbard"?

[Beingism]

We have indeed.

[rflosi]

myth 15: Beingism knows what Libertarianism is.

If you know what libertarianism is, then just watch this video and you'll see that Beingism does not know what he's talking about.

[Beingism]

Beingism is a philosophy, not a person.

Please leave further comments at the link listed above where it says "to comment on this video, go to..." Thanks!

[MirageScience]

@lordhighexecutioner Your right about 1 thing. When something is nationalized it does become an issue, but that's because nationalized production of anything is uncompetitive, become more expensive, and can always be payed for by indebting future generations.

Are we seriously going to think that a few politicians will be held accountable for all that the government takes over? what are we going to do? replace them with authoritarians? or maybe expect them to know what to do in every situation?

[lordhighexecutioner]

@MirageScience If the government bungles the nationalised railway, for example, this would become a campaign issue. The same thing about the government medical system. When the public utility raises the rates it's like a tax increase and this figures in the campaigns also. When the private corporations do these things it's considered their right and their business.

[FreeEcon]

@ineptsegue So can you answer my query regarding justifying policies using Public Choice?

[handsockpuppet]

@ineptsegue

Actually, #3 is indeed material to this argument, because libertarians believe that people would be more willing to give more and the money would be used more efficiently if people gave instead to private charities. By taxing the rich to get social programs for the poor, we're wasting a lot of money that could have gone to the same thing anyway. And I think your liberalism has infected your thought process if you think the police is doing what they're doing in the interest of rich.

[handsockpuppet]

@ineptsegue

Myth: There are no poor libertarians: I know many, and they would much rather have a good economy and a shot at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than more government regulations and taxes on the rich.

Myth: The Police force benefit the rich: quite the opposite, the rich pay huge sums in taxes for the police force, but it hires poorer people and generally hangs out in poor neighborhoods.

Myth: If the government doesn't force people to do charity, nobody will.

[handsockpuppet]

...You actually believe that libertarians support the military and the police solely because it benefits THEM!? I'm sorry, but that's downright offensive. Just because I believe in lower taxes and private charities does not mean I don't care about the poor.

[Akatam0t0ma]

@Beingism:

How much lives, resources and energy will we waste before we realize that an "effective government" is just a pipe dream, like "free energy"?

Also, you claim that government run programs are more accountable than privately run ones is lulzy, and serves as a dead-giveaway of your absymal economic illiteracy. You still operate under the false assumption as if government is somehow accountable and good so long as it has "the right bureaucrats" in power, lol.

[AroundSun]

@Beingism effective government, HAHAHA. Come on now

[Clyaton]

@Beingism Well, why do we as Americans think bigger is always better? When we are spending $40,000 into debt per person, smaller does automatically mean better. We haven't felt the effects of our messed up credit system yet. Fiscal responsibility should be the #1 issue, which entails every other single issue.

[MirageScience]

yes it would be hard to see why getting rid of laws would not give people freedom. Businesses are interested in profit and if they want demand for their products they won't screw the public.

This videos suck, you try giving an argument and you don't even define your terms.

HOW THE HELL IS ACCOUNTABILITY TAKEN AWAY FROM TAKING IT OUT OF PUBLIC HANDS? WE HARDLY EVER SEE A POLITICIAN PUT IN JAIL. I guess you call that accountability.