The Limits of Limited Government
Aug 17, 2011
Joe Carter
There’s an old Cold War-era joke about an ex-Communist who gets into an argument with a young man newly infatuated with Marxism. After the youth repeatedly attempts to explain why Marx and Lenin had all the right solutions, the exasperated old man finally retorts, “Son, your answers are so old that I've forgotten the questions.” 
In many ways we conservatives are like the young Marxist. We tend to be more familiar with conservative solutions than we are with the questions they were meant to address. A prime example is our invocation and praise of limited government. Despite being a shibboleth of political conservatism, it is unclear exactly what the phrase means. What political questions are we addressing when we appeal to the virtues of limited government?
Our failure to address questions like this one leads us to our toleration of politicians who merely mouth accepted platitudes but who are unable to implement corresponding policies. How can we expect them to know what we mean by the term when we aren’t so sure ourselves?
Perhaps what is needed is to set some boundary definitions, marking the outer limits of what we mean by limited government.
Our first marker should delineate the border between limited government and small government. Too often we make the error of using the phrases interchangeably. The modifiers “small” and “limited” are not synonymous; when applied to governments, one refers to size and the other to function. A governmental body can be large in size and still be limited in function just as it can be unrestricted in function and small in size.
Size does matter, of course, since the larger the government, the more resources it will command and the more likely it is to usurp authority that is outside its proper roles. But we should be careful not make the heuristic error of sloganeering that “Small Government is good, Big Government is bad.”
Next, we should separate the lines of limited government from the concept of federalism. One of the most frustrating confusions in modern conservatism is the belief that federalism is equivalent to limited government. If this were so then the European Union would be our ideal model since it provides one of the most effective examples of a federalist system.
Despite being a politically neutral concept, federalism has—at least the in U.S.—become associated with conservatism. American conservatives champion federalism because of its tendency to limit the power of our federal government. While laudable, this is not identical to the conservative view of limited government—a principle far more robust and expansive. It is not enough, for example, to limit the tyrannical and illegitimate powers at the federal level if they are merely shifted to the state governments. Federalism can be useful in drawing legitimate lines of constitutional authority. But it can also be used to justify the transfer of expansive and illegitimate power to the states.
For this reason our concept of limited government is inadequate if it includes only the federal branch of government. Our founding fathers recognized the threat of a powerful central government and instituted checks and balances in order to limit its effect on individual states. However, at the time of our country's founding, the population was roughly three million souls. Today, that many people live in the greater Cleveland area. What the crafters of our system were unable to foresee was that the state governments they cherished would one day grow to a size that would dwarf the governments of other countries (including our own in 1789).
The conservative focus on the federal government is understandable, considering the way it affects all citizens. But as the population increases, it becomes imperative that we pay equal attention to the Little Leviathans that arise at the state and even local levels of governance.
Limited government, then, is best construed as the principle that all levels of governance should be limited to their proper role, scope, and function.
As the political philosopher Robert P. George has argued, the proper role of government is to protect public health, safety, and morals, and to advance the general welfare by protecting people’s fundamental rights and basic liberties. The government fulfills its roles in two ways: directly, by protecting the lives and safety of citizens, and indirectly, by supporting the work of families, religious communities, and other mediating institutions of civil society.
Fulfilling the task of advancing the general welfare requires that government be limited in order not to infringe on the fundamental rights and basic liberties that it is charged with protecting. Limited government is therefore not a goal but an instrumental good. As such, our advocacy for governmental limitation must be subordinated to our defense of the “permanent things” that command our true allegiance. We can’t forget that like many other conservative concepts, answers can only be judged to be right when we understand the questions they are answering.
Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
Robert P. George, Law and Moral Purpose
Joe Carter, The Lives Federalists Won’t Save
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.17.2011 | 8:29am
Karen LH says:
It seems to me that the two ideas of solidarity and subsidiarity, from Catholic social teaching, taken together, form a good guide to what government should and should not do.
8.17.2011 | 8:39am
Joe DeVet says:
Good reminder, Joe C, and a very good clarification by Nick, above.
8.17.2011 | 9:27am
bill bannon says:
When America was young, grandparents were taken care of by families when they could no longer work. Since then the US has permitted an immodest culture that is vitiating of families in the name of freedom of speech and has permitted laws like no fault divorce that is destructive of families. Now nursing homes and medicaid take care of grandparents. Do away with medicaid and medicare and social security.....and life will not return to 18th century unified families taking in grandma again. Grandma will be dying in a tent under an overpass.
Culture and laws which government permitted helped destroy families which made government's job in the health care of the elderly bigger.
Secondly, Defense used to mean fighting an attacking country til it surrendered.
Now Defense means spending $100 billion a year in narco states like Afghanistan trying to get them to grow tomatoes instead...or $20 billion in ten years in dysfunctional states like Pakistan wherein surrender is not even a remote hope. And this is called limited government at work on defense
....but a homeless vet in the US with PTSD getting food stamps in a shelter is unlimited big government largesse. Just trying to see how military spending actually became foreign welfare and medicare but escaped being called big government. Just sayin'. Just sayin'.
Culture and laws which government permitted helped destroy families which made government's job in the health care of the elderly bigger.
Secondly, Defense used to mean fighting an attacking country til it surrendered.
Now Defense means spending $100 billion a year in narco states like Afghanistan trying to get them to grow tomatoes instead...or $20 billion in ten years in dysfunctional states like Pakistan wherein surrender is not even a remote hope. And this is called limited government at work on defense
....but a homeless vet in the US with PTSD getting food stamps in a shelter is unlimited big government largesse. Just trying to see how military spending actually became foreign welfare and medicare but escaped being called big government. Just sayin'. Just sayin'.
8.17.2011 | 10:56am
David Nickol says:
I wouldn't want to argue that government should take on *any* role or task that the people democratically decide upon, but certainly what the people want from government is a major factor in deciding what government ought to do.
As I have argued before, the way to resolve many of the open questions at the moment is to find out somehow what the American people want THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR. If the American people want "big government" and are willing to pay for it, then ideological arguments that the government ought to be small are irrelevant. On the other hand, if the American people want small government and are willing to do without many of the services government currently provides, then ideological arguments in favor of big government are irrelevant.
The problem at the moment is that Americans seem to want a big government but aren't willing to pay for it.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says government spending must be a certain percentage of GDP, and picking an arbitrary low number and sticking to it is a purely ideological exercise.
American government should be as big or as small as the American people want it to be, but it seems to me there is little or no effort by any political party to educate the American people and encourage them to make informed choices.
As I have argued before, the way to resolve many of the open questions at the moment is to find out somehow what the American people want THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR. If the American people want "big government" and are willing to pay for it, then ideological arguments that the government ought to be small are irrelevant. On the other hand, if the American people want small government and are willing to do without many of the services government currently provides, then ideological arguments in favor of big government are irrelevant.
The problem at the moment is that Americans seem to want a big government but aren't willing to pay for it.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says government spending must be a certain percentage of GDP, and picking an arbitrary low number and sticking to it is a purely ideological exercise.
American government should be as big or as small as the American people want it to be, but it seems to me there is little or no effort by any political party to educate the American people and encourage them to make informed choices.
8.17.2011 | 11:05am
Tristian says:
This is all well and good, but if "Limited government...is best construed as the principle that all levels of governance should be limited to their proper role, scope, and function" then it's pretty clear everyone is all in favor of it. Nor do we narrow things down much by defining the "the proper role of government" as "protect[ing] public health, safety, and morals, and...advanc[ing] the general welfare by protecting people’s fundamental rights and basic liberties." Again, who would disagree?
So where do we get to a distinctively 'conservative' reading of all this? I think you'd have to unpack "people's fundamental rights and basic liberties". For more libertarian styled conservatives in particular, the focus is going to be on the state role in protecting negative rights with substantial attention devoted to property rights. "Limited government" tends to translate as "more economic freedom."
So where do we get to a distinctively 'conservative' reading of all this? I think you'd have to unpack "people's fundamental rights and basic liberties". For more libertarian styled conservatives in particular, the focus is going to be on the state role in protecting negative rights with substantial attention devoted to property rights. "Limited government" tends to translate as "more economic freedom."
8.17.2011 | 11:14am
jason taylor says:
Actually Bill, Defense always meant that. There was never a time when we weren't constantly fighting small wars. We were more ruthless about our small wars then but our ancestors lived in a harder world. As for fighting an attacking country til it surrendered the only notable times that happened in the past was in the Civil War and World War II. Unless you count .Indian tribes as countries which is admittedly convenient(as tribal groupings tend to act like states of their own diplomatically speaking). In most of our conventional wars against formally organized states we ended with treating with them even if, as with the Mexican and Spanish American wars, the peace smelled a little of Vae Victus. There were few times an opponent's regime was actually extinguished.
8.17.2011 | 11:18am
MTC says:
David - seriously? Reduce all moral, philosophical, and practical arguments about what the state ought to do to popular opinion? The latest polling on the size of government should determine the size of government? Come on, you can do better than that.
8.17.2011 | 11:27am
Ethan C. says:
David Nickol, I think you make a fairly good point, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that ideological arguments have no role to play in our democracy.
Ideological arguments are, of course, not just about what sort of government we *will* have, but also about what sort of government we *ought* to have.
To wit, much of the ideological argumentation against unlimited government is based on various beliefs about the inherent problems that unlimited governments have. That is to say, the argument is that "big government" is not merely too expensive, but that it is in fact impossible for any country to sustain in the long run.
Therefore, the argument runs, big government must be opposed not merely because one prefers low taxes and low spending to high taxes and high spending, but because the former is the only option that permits long-term stability.
This idea reflects the conservative belief that there are natural limits to the flourishing of economic structures (how this might conflict with the common American "conservative" faith in unlimited economic growth I'll not discuss here).
So while I agree that the particular size and scope of government ought to be determined to a large degree by the popular will and willingness to pay the price for it, I do think there is an important place for ideological debate over whether certain types of government are by their natures better than others.
Ideological arguments are, of course, not just about what sort of government we *will* have, but also about what sort of government we *ought* to have.
To wit, much of the ideological argumentation against unlimited government is based on various beliefs about the inherent problems that unlimited governments have. That is to say, the argument is that "big government" is not merely too expensive, but that it is in fact impossible for any country to sustain in the long run.
Therefore, the argument runs, big government must be opposed not merely because one prefers low taxes and low spending to high taxes and high spending, but because the former is the only option that permits long-term stability.
This idea reflects the conservative belief that there are natural limits to the flourishing of economic structures (how this might conflict with the common American "conservative" faith in unlimited economic growth I'll not discuss here).
So while I agree that the particular size and scope of government ought to be determined to a large degree by the popular will and willingness to pay the price for it, I do think there is an important place for ideological debate over whether certain types of government are by their natures better than others.
8.17.2011 | 11:30am
Barry Arrington says:
The constant clarion call for limited government among movement conservatives leads to confusion, not the least of which is confusing libertarians with real Burkean conservatives. The libertarian simply says “no!” to everything. The Burkean says “My default position is ‘no,’ but I can be persuaded.” Being a Burkean requires a lot of effort though, and that’s why a lot of people avoid it. How much easier just to say “no, no, no.” Actually evaluating a proposal might mean you have to think about it for ten minutes, and ten minutes is a long time.
Being a Burkean is also scary. I know this from my own experience in my state’s legislature. I would look around at all of the RINOs (Republican In Name Only) and shudder. I am thinking of one RINO in particular who entered the legislature in the mid 80s as a fire breathing conservative, and by the time she retired she was holding down the far left of the party. And every time I considered supporting a program I would think to myself, “Am I ‘growing’ in office? Am I on the slippery slope to RINO perdition?”
Being a Burkean is not easy.
I do not agree, however, that the founders did not foresee that state governments might exercise overweening power. The understood that the states would have plenary power over all matters not assigned to the federal government. As a matter of fact, they knew they might. Indeed, many founders believed they already were (remember, many states had established churches that were anathema to many of the founders). The constitution does not ensure that state governments will not do stupid things. No constitution can. But, properly understood, the constitution does ensure that accountability for the stupidity is pushed as far down as possible. If the people of, say, California, continue to elect stupid politicians, no constitution can save them.
In summary, limited government in the form of federalism is a constitutional principle. Limited government at the state level is a prudential principle.
Being a Burkean is also scary. I know this from my own experience in my state’s legislature. I would look around at all of the RINOs (Republican In Name Only) and shudder. I am thinking of one RINO in particular who entered the legislature in the mid 80s as a fire breathing conservative, and by the time she retired she was holding down the far left of the party. And every time I considered supporting a program I would think to myself, “Am I ‘growing’ in office? Am I on the slippery slope to RINO perdition?”
Being a Burkean is not easy.
I do not agree, however, that the founders did not foresee that state governments might exercise overweening power. The understood that the states would have plenary power over all matters not assigned to the federal government. As a matter of fact, they knew they might. Indeed, many founders believed they already were (remember, many states had established churches that were anathema to many of the founders). The constitution does not ensure that state governments will not do stupid things. No constitution can. But, properly understood, the constitution does ensure that accountability for the stupidity is pushed as far down as possible. If the people of, say, California, continue to elect stupid politicians, no constitution can save them.
In summary, limited government in the form of federalism is a constitutional principle. Limited government at the state level is a prudential principle.
8.17.2011 | 11:57am
Nick says:
@David,
Constitutional Law implies that there are some things that are done even if they don't have popular mandate. For example, we accept that Freedom of Speech should endure even if the Mob doesn't accept it. This gives us generational continuity. America is not a about the popular vote, it is about the Rule of Law. This is one of the things that escapes modern Liberalism.
@Barry,
I never had to serve in a real legislature but I had to serve in a rather large board for a condominium project. I saw the slide that you described in every meeting. It was much easier to stop saying no just so that an argument wouldn't ensue. This is the difference between a Burkean and a coward. Fortunately the all Liberal community was very fiscally conservative when it came to directly assessed fees. Go figure.
Constitutional Law implies that there are some things that are done even if they don't have popular mandate. For example, we accept that Freedom of Speech should endure even if the Mob doesn't accept it. This gives us generational continuity. America is not a about the popular vote, it is about the Rule of Law. This is one of the things that escapes modern Liberalism.
@Barry,
I never had to serve in a real legislature but I had to serve in a rather large board for a condominium project. I saw the slide that you described in every meeting. It was much easier to stop saying no just so that an argument wouldn't ensue. This is the difference between a Burkean and a coward. Fortunately the all Liberal community was very fiscally conservative when it came to directly assessed fees. Go figure.
8.17.2011 | 12:42pm
Michael PS says:
In every state, there must be some person, or body of persons, who can make and unmake any law whatsoever.
Classical liberalism implies a highly conservative version of the rule of law and a sovereignty limited by a constitutive political act beyond the reach of normal politics. Democracy threatens the constitutional regime with a boundless sovereign power that it claims in the name of the "people."
So, the question becomes, which group, in any given situation, has the power to impose its rules, whilst maintaining social order; every political system is only the stabilised and temporary result of past conflicts. As Talleyrand said "Every act of government is a means of not losing control of the people."
Classical liberalism implies a highly conservative version of the rule of law and a sovereignty limited by a constitutive political act beyond the reach of normal politics. Democracy threatens the constitutional regime with a boundless sovereign power that it claims in the name of the "people."
So, the question becomes, which group, in any given situation, has the power to impose its rules, whilst maintaining social order; every political system is only the stabilised and temporary result of past conflicts. As Talleyrand said "Every act of government is a means of not losing control of the people."
8.17.2011 | 12:52pm
David Nickol says:
MTC and Nick,
Please read the opening statement of my post: "I wouldn't want to argue that government should take on *any* role or task that the people democratically decide upon, but certainly what the people want from government is a major factor in deciding what government ought to do."
There are clearly things that government shouldn't do, and clearly things that government should do, "but certainly what the people want from government is a major factor in deciding what government ought to do."
I don't want to make too sweeping a generalization, but I would say that by and large, the size of government today is not a matter of the government doing things it ought not to do, but government doing things that won't be affordable if current trends (and levels of taxation) continue. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that government currently does that it really ought not to do at all if government can do it well and affordably.
Please read the opening statement of my post: "I wouldn't want to argue that government should take on *any* role or task that the people democratically decide upon, but certainly what the people want from government is a major factor in deciding what government ought to do."
There are clearly things that government shouldn't do, and clearly things that government should do, "but certainly what the people want from government is a major factor in deciding what government ought to do."
I don't want to make too sweeping a generalization, but I would say that by and large, the size of government today is not a matter of the government doing things it ought not to do, but government doing things that won't be affordable if current trends (and levels of taxation) continue. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that government currently does that it really ought not to do at all if government can do it well and affordably.
8.17.2011 | 1:56pm
Dan says:
I disagree with solidarity and subsidiarity as principles for governance. These are principles for the individual and their small groups and it is still unclear their role I. Governance. Catholic though in governance has been all over the board over the past two millennia and quite frankly now gravitates toward European-style socialist democracies.
I, though interested in such things as ensuring that everyone gets important needs lime food and healthcare, and even though I am a "lefty," do not reflexively find this Catholic solution of Europe-style activities as the only possible solution.
But it must be made clear, the Church speaks in a limited way on exactly the nature of governance.
I must behave in a way to promote solidarity and subsidiarity however.
Nice article, Mr. Carter.
I, though interested in such things as ensuring that everyone gets important needs lime food and healthcare, and even though I am a "lefty," do not reflexively find this Catholic solution of Europe-style activities as the only possible solution.
But it must be made clear, the Church speaks in a limited way on exactly the nature of governance.
I must behave in a way to promote solidarity and subsidiarity however.
Nice article, Mr. Carter.
8.17.2011 | 2:33pm
Joseph Marshall says:
Since this is actually a sensible discussion of these issues, the sort of thing that I, as a liberal, have been trying for months to get out of hyperventilating conservatives in other venues, I'd like to point out something very practical.
We had a federal government more or less as Nick has described from about 1866 to 1933. We also had a history of unbelievable economic turmoil,resulting in immense human misery, far beyond anything that has occurred since 1941. I think it unquestionable that the reason for this is the expansion of federal government, through the widening of the Interstate Commerce Clause, since 1933. But I'm open to persuasion otherwise if anyone wants to try.
If you can accept my view, then I will ask you this. Do you really want to return to such turmoil and human suffering. if that is the real cost of limited egovernment? As far as I can see, the overall trend of the deregulation that has already taken place since 1981 has been to push us ever closer to our economically turbulent past. So I think there is every reason to expect your vision of limited government to completely return us to it, if it takes hold. I'm also open to argument about this, as well, if one of you wishes to make it.
Consider an example. Would you eliminate bank deposit insurance and the Federal Reserve System? It seems to me that, as in our limited government past, that this is a formula for regular collapses of the entire banking system and the obliteration of all the assets of millions of ordinary people--and, probably, even the eradication of your private assets among them.
No American under the age of about 90 has had direct experience with a paniced run on a bank by its depositors, and I often question whether conservatives my age or younger even know that it is possible, and why non-limited government prevents it.
Is this sort of limited government really worth it?
We had a federal government more or less as Nick has described from about 1866 to 1933. We also had a history of unbelievable economic turmoil,resulting in immense human misery, far beyond anything that has occurred since 1941. I think it unquestionable that the reason for this is the expansion of federal government, through the widening of the Interstate Commerce Clause, since 1933. But I'm open to persuasion otherwise if anyone wants to try.
If you can accept my view, then I will ask you this. Do you really want to return to such turmoil and human suffering. if that is the real cost of limited egovernment? As far as I can see, the overall trend of the deregulation that has already taken place since 1981 has been to push us ever closer to our economically turbulent past. So I think there is every reason to expect your vision of limited government to completely return us to it, if it takes hold. I'm also open to argument about this, as well, if one of you wishes to make it.
Consider an example. Would you eliminate bank deposit insurance and the Federal Reserve System? It seems to me that, as in our limited government past, that this is a formula for regular collapses of the entire banking system and the obliteration of all the assets of millions of ordinary people--and, probably, even the eradication of your private assets among them.
No American under the age of about 90 has had direct experience with a paniced run on a bank by its depositors, and I often question whether conservatives my age or younger even know that it is possible, and why non-limited government prevents it.
Is this sort of limited government really worth it?
8.17.2011 | 2:51pm
Douglas Johnson says:
Dear Joe Carter,
Excellent, excellent post. I'd go so far as to call it Jaffa-esque.
Excellent, excellent post. I'd go so far as to call it Jaffa-esque.
8.17.2011 | 3:33pm
Randy says:
Forced alms giving (through taxing) isn't really "giving," is it? But real (voluntary) alms giving blesses both the giver and the receiver. It's often a spiritual experience. So, if giving is possible to accomplish privately, voluntarily, then that's how it should happen. It's a much greater blessing that way. If we Americans ever lose the tradition of voluntary giving, then we're pretty much lost anyway.
8.17.2011 | 3:37pm
R Hampton says:
Joseph Marshall,
While I'm not opposed to reducing federal government, I'm not so naive to believe that we ought to trust those freed from burdens to also uphold their newly granted responsibilities. So I do agree with your premise. Many of our laws and regulations, like the New Deal, arose out of vital necessity. When left to our own devices, individuals, companies, and sometimes even the states either refused to effectively police themselves, or did so amid corruption, favoritism, and the like. Thus any transfer of power back must come with mandated assurances.
For example, some Conservatives have proposed drastic cuts to the EPA - but what have the offered in return? Who do the expect to pay for the decades-long impact of "mistakes" that leads to environmental damage like contaminated water sources, increases in birth defects, etc.
If history is any guide, then the individuals and/or companies responsible won't shoulder the burden -- because the cost would lead to bankruptcy, loss of important jobs, etc., then their liabilities must be limited to what they can tolerate.
In other words, a different spin on the "too big to fail" escape clause.
While I'm not opposed to reducing federal government, I'm not so naive to believe that we ought to trust those freed from burdens to also uphold their newly granted responsibilities. So I do agree with your premise. Many of our laws and regulations, like the New Deal, arose out of vital necessity. When left to our own devices, individuals, companies, and sometimes even the states either refused to effectively police themselves, or did so amid corruption, favoritism, and the like. Thus any transfer of power back must come with mandated assurances.
For example, some Conservatives have proposed drastic cuts to the EPA - but what have the offered in return? Who do the expect to pay for the decades-long impact of "mistakes" that leads to environmental damage like contaminated water sources, increases in birth defects, etc.
If history is any guide, then the individuals and/or companies responsible won't shoulder the burden -- because the cost would lead to bankruptcy, loss of important jobs, etc., then their liabilities must be limited to what they can tolerate.
In other words, a different spin on the "too big to fail" escape clause.
8.17.2011 | 4:19pm
bill bannon says:
Randy
Real alms is a minuscule possibility if you are thinking of it as replacing medicare, medicaid, and social security which in 2010 was $1,494 billion. By comparison, US Catholics gave 60 million to Haiti after it's devastation. The Vatican gave $100,000 each to Haiti, to Iraq and to Japan and its total investments savings is about a billion dollars. I think if the world switched to real alms rather than government involvement within each border, it would spell early deaths or suffering for millions upon millions worldwide because it's just too small a pool. Six movie stars gave ten percent of what all Catholics gave to Haiti because alms is easier for those with excessive savings. Alms is very relevant though in disasters like the drought in East Africa now and in specialized charities
Real alms is a minuscule possibility if you are thinking of it as replacing medicare, medicaid, and social security which in 2010 was $1,494 billion. By comparison, US Catholics gave 60 million to Haiti after it's devastation. The Vatican gave $100,000 each to Haiti, to Iraq and to Japan and its total investments savings is about a billion dollars. I think if the world switched to real alms rather than government involvement within each border, it would spell early deaths or suffering for millions upon millions worldwide because it's just too small a pool. Six movie stars gave ten percent of what all Catholics gave to Haiti because alms is easier for those with excessive savings. Alms is very relevant though in disasters like the drought in East Africa now and in specialized charities
8.17.2011 | 5:07pm
Raymond Takashi Swenson says:
The Left in America has a hypersensitive view of what "injures" people or society or Nature, and therefore justifies intervention by Government to prevent the perceived "injury". The broadest reach of "injury" now is the theory of "Global Warming", which asserts that the prosaic activities of heating and cooling your home, of raising your food, of driving to church, are all so harmful to the natural and human environment that every activity that uses energy must be regulated. Since EVERYTHING involves use of energy, this is a formula to justify totalitarian control of every aspect of our lives. The fact is that it is this justification for extending the power of government that makes the theory attractive to so many people, not any actual experience of dire consequences from alleged warming (which has stopped accumulating for 15 years now).
While there has been active litigation attacking the Federal requirement to buy health insurance, we are already facing government mandates that we purchase vehicles that meet minimum standards of MPG (the case here in Washington State). The only escape is that it allows us to keep our old cars, but there is no reason that Government could not force us to retire our old cars precisely for the same reason, to reduce our "carbon footprints". It could be done by taxing old cars on an exponential scale as they age.
Unofortunately, the courts have basically thrown out the 5th Amendment requirement that the Government pay "just compensation" when it takes away our rights to manage our own property. If a wetland is found on your land, or an endangered flower, your land is now owned in every important way by the Government, except you still have to pay property taxes on it, as well as any costs of cleaning up contamination. This abandonment of one of the principal ways of "limiting Government" has borne the precise evil fruit that was feared by the Founders. Instead of quartering British soldiers in your house, they are quartering the Furbish Lousewort on your farm, and establishing that the highest and best use of your property is not raising crops or building a house, but as habitat for ducks and spawning fish, all at no cost to the Government, and therefore without limit.
While there has been active litigation attacking the Federal requirement to buy health insurance, we are already facing government mandates that we purchase vehicles that meet minimum standards of MPG (the case here in Washington State). The only escape is that it allows us to keep our old cars, but there is no reason that Government could not force us to retire our old cars precisely for the same reason, to reduce our "carbon footprints". It could be done by taxing old cars on an exponential scale as they age.
Unofortunately, the courts have basically thrown out the 5th Amendment requirement that the Government pay "just compensation" when it takes away our rights to manage our own property. If a wetland is found on your land, or an endangered flower, your land is now owned in every important way by the Government, except you still have to pay property taxes on it, as well as any costs of cleaning up contamination. This abandonment of one of the principal ways of "limiting Government" has borne the precise evil fruit that was feared by the Founders. Instead of quartering British soldiers in your house, they are quartering the Furbish Lousewort on your farm, and establishing that the highest and best use of your property is not raising crops or building a house, but as habitat for ducks and spawning fish, all at no cost to the Government, and therefore without limit.
8.17.2011 | 5:42pm
Dan says:
Mr. Bannon has two agreeable posts. In each he highlights important realities of current government.
One is our imperial sense of military functions. As the superpower with the nukes, how small can we be when trying to leash Pakistan (THE Real Islamic nuclear state) AND make sure that it is only Russia with it's nukes trained on out cities (since Russians seem more trustworthy to aim with their aim of nuclear weapons at us as opposed to a Saudi aiming a Russian nuclear weapon at us). Do limited or small government folks ever really think of shrinking the military-will Pay Toomey really do that? I think not. He will shrink the military by shrinking the VA system. He is less concerned with the veteran than the Club for Growth.
Now, I agree that American largesse is never to be replaced with "alms.". It has never been replaced. But this largesse was not enacted out of spiritual desire, but to improve a society lurching toward communism in desperate times. Now that desperation is in pockets in this country-but because of our population size, these are huge pockets.
I do disagree with Mr. Bannon's premise of some previous Americanized Eden in Whig the family was good and whole and all was "apple pie.". Such a time was myth and desperation gripped many people extensively, excluding the imperial horrors inflicted on whole groups of Native Americans. That is another problem altogether.
I think there exists a myth of an American Eden among conservatives. It didn't exist.
One is our imperial sense of military functions. As the superpower with the nukes, how small can we be when trying to leash Pakistan (THE Real Islamic nuclear state) AND make sure that it is only Russia with it's nukes trained on out cities (since Russians seem more trustworthy to aim with their aim of nuclear weapons at us as opposed to a Saudi aiming a Russian nuclear weapon at us). Do limited or small government folks ever really think of shrinking the military-will Pay Toomey really do that? I think not. He will shrink the military by shrinking the VA system. He is less concerned with the veteran than the Club for Growth.
Now, I agree that American largesse is never to be replaced with "alms.". It has never been replaced. But this largesse was not enacted out of spiritual desire, but to improve a society lurching toward communism in desperate times. Now that desperation is in pockets in this country-but because of our population size, these are huge pockets.
I do disagree with Mr. Bannon's premise of some previous Americanized Eden in Whig the family was good and whole and all was "apple pie.". Such a time was myth and desperation gripped many people extensively, excluding the imperial horrors inflicted on whole groups of Native Americans. That is another problem altogether.
I think there exists a myth of an American Eden among conservatives. It didn't exist.
8.17.2011 | 7:23pm
R Hampton says:
Raymond Takashi Swenson,
I understand your frustration, but if we (as individuals, members of organizations, employees of corporations, etc.) do not take full financial and societal responsibility for our actions, then you can't complain when the government steps in to fill the gap:
Compenduium of the Social Doctrine on the Church
470. Programs of economic development must carefully consider “the need to respect the integrity and the cycles of nature” because natural resources are limited and some are not renewable. The present rhythm of exploitation is seriously compromising the availability of some natural resources for both the present and the future. Solutions to the ecological problem require that economic activity respect the environment to a greater degree, reconciling the needs of economic development with those of environmental protection. Every economic activity making use of natural resources must also be concerned with safeguarding the environment and should foresee the costs involved, which are “an essential element of the actual cost of economic activity”. In this context, one considers relations between human activity and climate change which, given their extreme complexity, must be opportunely and constantly monitored at the scientific, political and juridical, national and international levels. The climate is a good that must be protected and reminds consumers and those engaged in industrial activity to develop a greater sense of responsibility for their behaviour.
An economy respectful of the environment will not have the maximization of profits as its only objective, because environmental protection cannot be assured solely on the basis of financial calculations of costs and benefits. The environment is one of those goods that cannot be adequately safeguarded or promoted by market forces. Every country, in particular developed countries, must be aware of the urgent obligation to reconsider the way that natural goods are being used. Seeking innovative ways to reduce the environmental impact of production and consumption of goods should be effectively encouraged.
I understand your frustration, but if we (as individuals, members of organizations, employees of corporations, etc.) do not take full financial and societal responsibility for our actions, then you can't complain when the government steps in to fill the gap:
Compenduium of the Social Doctrine on the Church
470. Programs of economic development must carefully consider “the need to respect the integrity and the cycles of nature” because natural resources are limited and some are not renewable. The present rhythm of exploitation is seriously compromising the availability of some natural resources for both the present and the future. Solutions to the ecological problem require that economic activity respect the environment to a greater degree, reconciling the needs of economic development with those of environmental protection. Every economic activity making use of natural resources must also be concerned with safeguarding the environment and should foresee the costs involved, which are “an essential element of the actual cost of economic activity”. In this context, one considers relations between human activity and climate change which, given their extreme complexity, must be opportunely and constantly monitored at the scientific, political and juridical, national and international levels. The climate is a good that must be protected and reminds consumers and those engaged in industrial activity to develop a greater sense of responsibility for their behaviour.
An economy respectful of the environment will not have the maximization of profits as its only objective, because environmental protection cannot be assured solely on the basis of financial calculations of costs and benefits. The environment is one of those goods that cannot be adequately safeguarded or promoted by market forces. Every country, in particular developed countries, must be aware of the urgent obligation to reconsider the way that natural goods are being used. Seeking innovative ways to reduce the environmental impact of production and consumption of goods should be effectively encouraged.
8.17.2011 | 8:03pm
Calvin John says:
David Nichol wrote:
If the American people want "big government" and are willing to pay for it, then ideological arguments that the government ought to be small are irrelevant.
David, the U.S. Constitution granted Congress some specific, enumerated powers (Art. 1, Sec. 8). I don't care how badly people "want" things outside those powers. According to the supreme law of our land, the only acceptable "ideological argument" to show their "want" it is to amend the Constitution BEFORE picking my pocket - NOT to pressure their lawmakers to violate their oath of office.
I maintain that any Congressman or bureaucrat who uses federal (my) money for anything outside those enumerated powers is a thief who deserves to go to jail.
Our Lord warned that MANY will plead that they'd prophesied, cast out demons, and done many wonderful works in his name (Mt. 7:22). Before I remind you what he will tell them, let me ask you: How are all those do-gooders any different, who impose on us such supposedly wonderful government programs the people "want"? Since when does the end justify the lawless means?
"Depart from me, you who work lawlessness." (Mt. 7:23).
If the American people want "big government" and are willing to pay for it, then ideological arguments that the government ought to be small are irrelevant.
David, the U.S. Constitution granted Congress some specific, enumerated powers (Art. 1, Sec. 8). I don't care how badly people "want" things outside those powers. According to the supreme law of our land, the only acceptable "ideological argument" to show their "want" it is to amend the Constitution BEFORE picking my pocket - NOT to pressure their lawmakers to violate their oath of office.
I maintain that any Congressman or bureaucrat who uses federal (my) money for anything outside those enumerated powers is a thief who deserves to go to jail.
Our Lord warned that MANY will plead that they'd prophesied, cast out demons, and done many wonderful works in his name (Mt. 7:22). Before I remind you what he will tell them, let me ask you: How are all those do-gooders any different, who impose on us such supposedly wonderful government programs the people "want"? Since when does the end justify the lawless means?
"Depart from me, you who work lawlessness." (Mt. 7:23).
8.17.2011 | 8:17pm
Dan says:
Mr. Swenson,
Prosaic activities have enormously impacted the environment and we have done so for all our existence. We have over-fished areas. We have removed forests and have over-farmed.
It is only the human in the 21st century unconnected to the land that fails to get that we impact the environment. Prosaic activities all did that.
It seems to be a challenge for conservatives to embrace a set of behaviors that lacks the contours of clear good/evil and instead seek damage reduction.
Prosaic activities have enormously impacted the environment and we have done so for all our existence. We have over-fished areas. We have removed forests and have over-farmed.
It is only the human in the 21st century unconnected to the land that fails to get that we impact the environment. Prosaic activities all did that.
It seems to be a challenge for conservatives to embrace a set of behaviors that lacks the contours of clear good/evil and instead seek damage reduction.
8.17.2011 | 8:24pm
TeaPot562 says:
Some state governments also become overweening. A town to our immediate south tried to substitute one form of parking meter for another in a beach-side parking lot. The California "Coastal Zoning Commission" obtained an order forcing removal of the new meters on the grounds that the town council had failed to get proper permission from the State commission in making this change (to the environment next to the beach)! They applied for permission, and subsequently obtained it; but they had to remove the new meters first before the CZC would consider their request.
The larger a bureaucracy is, state or federal, the more nonsense it will perform as each employee tries to enlarge his/her responsibilities.
TeaPot562
The larger a bureaucracy is, state or federal, the more nonsense it will perform as each employee tries to enlarge his/her responsibilities.
TeaPot562
8.18.2011 | 4:02pm
Michael PS says:
Rousseau well observes
“Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important.”
The reason is obvious
“If the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”
“Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important.”
The reason is obvious
“If the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”
8.25.2011 | 7:19pm
Steven Donegal says:
"Our founding fathers recognized the threat of a powerful central government and instituted checks and balances in order to limit its effect on individual states."
And this was largely because the states' powers were very large. There wasn't "limited government" at the state level in 1789. Quite the opposite.
And this was largely because the states' powers were very large. There wasn't "limited government" at the state level in 1789. Quite the opposite.
9.21.2011 | 4:39am
Jakiela Mckenzie says:
I understand your frustration, but if we (as individuals, members of organizations, employees of corporations, etc.) do not take full financial and societal responsibility for our actions, then you can't complain when the government steps in to fill the gap: The federal government has an obligation to provide a common currency, assist in transactions by providing information exchange for the transaction (mostly under contract law), provide for the common defense, provide for a common foreign policy, and assert the rights in the Constitution. That is limited government. Gone is the Department of Education, Labor, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and a host of others. There would also be an elimination of transfer payments which serve a noble and conservative purpose but are the purview of the states.
None of this would make us look like the EU since the EU does not have a common defense as such, has a scattered commercial system, does not provide uniform transaction law, does not have a single foreign policy, or a constitution that makes sense.