| For A Smaller Government My first and foremost reason for wishing our government to be smaller is that it will cost less. Every program costs money and we all foot the bill. Since the population does not have line-veto power in terms of government spending, our only recourse is through our elected officials. The problem is, both Democrats and Republicans are proponents of big government. The media may present the differences as supply-side vs. demand-side economics, or liberal vs. conservative social issues, but they ignore the fact they both approaches use tax-big spend-big tactics. In the last 100 years, this country has astronomically increased the tax burden on the population from less than 3% to about 50%. New taxes include the Federal Income Tax, state sales taxes, property tax (also see the Property Ownership Sham essay), and on and on with things called tax. There is a nice history of American Income Tax here. Another disturbing concept is the expansion of law. Every new law is a restriction of behavior, don't do this, don't do that. How long can a society endure ever-restrictive codes of conduct? Keep in mind we created the laws that address the grievances of victims hundreds of years ago. Today I feel new laws are introduced merely so legislators can account for their time, they do little to improve society, and in fact I feel most of new legislation harms society by way of unnecessary restriction. The Offenses There are many activities our governments conduct that I feel they should not. Not to say those things shouldn't be done, but that they shouldn't be done BY GOVERNMENT. Maintaining parks for example. It is a good thing to have parcels of natural land available for the public to enjoy, but if you charge a per-use fee, doesn't it become a for-profit business? Even if the goal is not to make a profit, it IS a business. If we repeal property taxes like I outline here, there would be no involuntary cost involved with owning natural land, and even a $1 entry fee and 1 patron a year would yield a profit. The Post Office is another example of government acting as a business. We can guarantee privacy without actually running the business. Why does our government insist on the compulsory redistribution of wealth as charity when charities already exist? Do we really need Welfare? Most churches operate charities to help the indigent. The Salvation Army and a host of other charities exist for that explicit purpose. FEMA was created in direct competition with the efforts of the Red Cross. According to my parents, after the series of hurricanes in Florida it was the Red Cross that supplied them with drinking water, ice, and other necessities. FEMA did nothing to help them, and in fact was a great deterrent to the clean-up process. For example there was a lot of debris in the canals. Residents were cleaning up the canals, but FEMA officials told them they could not put debris to the curb for garbage pick-up; they should take it to a particular dump-site. The residents said that the dump-site had a per-dump fee that they would rather put the debris back in the canal; why should they be charged for helping? The FEMA officers asserted if they put the debris back in the canal they would be fined for littering. This is the real application of your tax dollars working against what is right. Additionally, our governments should not enforce particular moralities. Does it surprise you to learn that in 2006 our federal government spent over $160 million dollars toward abstinence education? I feel the decision of whether to have sex outside of marriage is something for a person to decide for themselves. Naturally a person will make their decision using input from family, community, or anything else that matters TO THEM. Federal government has no place telling us which morals are preferred and neither should they spend exorbitant sums of money to that end. This is best be handled by family, friends, church, or at the wildest extreme, private advocacy groups. Social Security is another example. Shouldn't people be free to choose their own retirement plan, or no plan at all? Most working people do carry their own investments (401k for example) with an eye toward retirement. The practical reality is that nobody can live on what Social Security benefits provide. Any reasonable person will provide their own retirement benefits ANYWAY. All these arguments aside, it is just not right for civil government to act as an investment counselor that is required by law. Ample retirement (and disability insurance) plans exist now. There is no reason we cannot simply dissolve all of Social Security now and refund all the vested money. Another big problem with our bloated government is the inefficiency of some departments. A shining example is the IRS which costs billions of dollars a year to operate. There are much better ways to collect even the same amount of usable revenue, which would in turn mean less tax paid by citizens because of the reduced overhead. Again, I invite you to read my Tax Reform essay for some good ideas. The same concept applies to all long-arms of government. If we abolish Social Security, we eliminate the OPERATING COST of the department as well as the benefits paid. We also see the problem in local governments such as zoning boards, downtown beautification boards, etc. We don't need city council to tell us Eastpointe, MI cannot support 140 liquor stores. The free market will not allow that many stores to make a profit. It will be self-leveling. There is no need to pay the salaries of a 9-person panel to decide that. If we just enforce laws that hold people responsible when they cause some form of damage, there is no need to pre-ordain things like that. A factory will not be built next door to you...the lot sizes are not big enough. A common argument is "how would you like it if 25 topless bars suddenly opened in your neighborhood?" You know what, if they could stay in business and make a profit then maybe society really wanted them after all. Recently in Sterling Heights, MI a plumber was told he cannot park his work truck in his driveway overnight. He will suffer a great hardship because of this. He may very well have to move his family out of the city. City Council told him they feel for him, but they cannot make an exception because if they let him park his truck in his driveway they will also have to let the electrician and the carpenter park their trucks in their driveways. Where is the harm in that? Who suffers from this? Why are we spending money to have these victimless actions deemed illegal? Drop all these petty ordinances and let people live. If someone actually causes HARM to another person surely there is law in place to address it. The Solutions Let's get some Libertarian-minded people in office that will trim the
fat...a lot of fat, from our governments. Services that we want to
retain can be privatized, but most can simply be terminated. More
so, this will allow the people that previously worked in those abolished
programs to relocate to jobs that actually have a productive output.
A lawyer employed by the IRS brings no tangible value to society, but if
they were to were to become a fisherman, for example, the world's food
supply would increase, food would be cheaper for everyone...its a
win-win situation. "That government is best which governs least" "It is the role of government to protect us
from each other - we overstep our bounds when we attempt to protect us
from ourselves." “It's not tyranny we desire; it's
a just, limited, federal government.” “My reading of history convinces me
that most bad government results from too much government.” |
The opinions expressed
here are mine alone. Care to comment? Click
HERE |