They don’t necessarily have to, but generally do. For instance during austerity measures spending is generally reduced in most areas. Police forces have less funding and thus lose the ability to have as great an effect on an area, that is they have less power. Unless you’re talking about power as a state of laws instead of a state of what is physically done to people?
Well, yes, it was all over the news. This feels like a trick question. Are you about to tell me that spending went up during the recession or something?
Then what was all that stuff on the news about cutting government jobs, trying desperately to ensure frontline services weren’t effected and so on about?
Edit: I knew it! No wonder I felt so confused. It would seem the reduction in spending just took a while to come into effect. Take a look at the years after 2011 that your chart is missing. Unfortunately it’s not adjusted for inflation but you still get the idea. If you change category to protection and the subcategory to ‘police’, ‘prisons’ or ‘law courts’, you can see the reduction in police funding over the course of the recession.
Take a look at the years after 2011 that your chart is missing.
So, my trap backfired? Ouch. :-( I guess I should be more careful about where I dig them :-) But I shall persevere anyway! :-D
First, let me point out that the UK public spending contracted for a single year (2013) and 2014 is already projected to top all previous years. That’s not a meaningful contraction.
Second, we are talking about the power of the government. Did you feel this power lessened is some way around 2013? Sure, some programs were cut or didn’t grow as fast as some people wanted, but is there any discernible way in which the government was weaker in 2013 than it was in 2012?
Right, it’s time we got back on track. Now that we using the same definition of power and we’ve come to the conclusion that a reduction in tax revenues can reduce physical projection of power but is unlikely to remove the laws that determine what maximum level of power is legally allowed to be projected.
I believe you were talking about optimal levels of power when compared to growth?
Which particular theory? You asked why do I want the reduce the power of the government and what does that mean. I tried to answer to the best of my ability, but there is no falsifiable theory about my values. They are what they are.
A theory of government is not an terminal value, it is an instrumental one. You believe that that particular way of government will make people happy/autonomous/free/healthy/whatever your value system is. What is lacking is evidence that this particular government actually achieves those aims. It’s a reasonable a priori argument, but so are dozens of other arguments for other governments. We need to distinguish which reality we are actually living in. By what metric can your goals be measured and where would you expect them to be highest? Are there countries/states trying this and what is the effect? Are there countries doing the exact opposite and what would you expect to be the result of that? Your belief must be falsifiable or else it is permeable to flour and meaningless. Stage a full crisis of faith if you have to. No retreating into a separate magesterium, why do you believe what you believe?
Because a larger government takes more of my money, because it limits me in certain areas where I would prefer not to be limited, and because it has scarier and more probable failure modes.
It finally makes sense, you’re looking at it from a personal point of view. Consider it from the view of the average wellbeing of the entire populace. Zoom out to consider the entire country, the full system of which the government is just a small part. A larger government has more probable failure modes, but a small one simply outsources its failure modes to companies and extremely rich individuals. Power abhors a vacuum.
You and I are not large enough or typical enough for considerations about our optimality to enter into the running of a country. People are eternal and essentially unchanging, the average level of humanity rises but slowly. The only realistic way to improve their lot is to change the situation in which the decision is made. The structure of the system they flow through is too important to be left to market forces and random chance. I don’t care much if it inconveniences me so long as on average the lot of humanity is improved.
Edit: I fully expect you to disagree with me, but at least that’s one mystery solved.
Consider it from the view of the average wellbeing of the entire populace.
Sure. A larger government takes more of their money, limits them in areas where they would prefer to be not limited, and has scarier and more probable failure modes.
a small one simply outsources its failure modes to companies and extremely rich individuals.
No, I don’t think so, not the really scary failure modes. Things like Pol Pot’s Kampuchea cannot be outsourced.
People are eternal and essentially unchanging, the average level of humanity rises but slowly.
The second half of that sentence contradicts the first half.
The structure of the system they flow through is too important to be left to market forces and random chance.
I don’t know of anyone who proposes random chance as a guiding political principle. As to the market forces, well, they provide the best economy human societies have ever seen. A lot of people thought they could do better—they all turned out to be wrong.
so long as on average the lot of humanity is improved.
You’re still missing a minor part—showing that a large government does indeed do that better compared to a smaller one. By the way, are you saying that the current government size and power (say, typical for EU countries) are optimal? too small?
You misunderstand me. I am not saying that a large government is definitely better. I’m simply playing devils advocate. I find it worrying that you can’t find any examples of good things in larger government though. Do socialised single payer healthcare, lower crime rates due to more police, better roads, better infrastructure, environmental protections and higher quality schools not count as benefit? These are all things that require taxes and can be improved with greater spending on them.
Edit: In retrospect maybe this is how a changed humanity looks already. That seems to fit the reality better.
I find it worrying that you can’t find any examples of good things in larger government
Of course I can. Recall me talking about the multidimensionality of government power and how most people (including me) would prefer more in one dimension but less in another. On the whole I would prefer a weaker government, but not necessarily in every single aspect.
However I would stress once again the cost-benefit balance. More is only better is you’re below the optimal point, go above it and more will be worse.
And neither of us have the evidence required to find this point (if indeed it is just one point instead of several optimal peaks). I’m tapping out. If you have any closing points I’ll try to take them into account in my thinking. Regardless, it seems like we agree on more than we disagree on.
Do socialised single payer healthcare, lower crime rates due to more police, better roads, better infrastructure, environmental protections and higher quality schools not count as benefit?
Some of these things are, some aren’t. Let’s go through the list:
single payer healthcare,
In the countries I’m most familiar with the socialized health care system is something you want to avoid if you have an alternative.
lower crime rates due to more police, better roads, better infrastructure,
Ok, those are examples. Even if the the crime rates that make more police necessary are due to other stupid government policies.
environmental protections
Well these days a lot of environmental protection laws are insane, as in we must divert water from the farms because if we don’t the delta smelt population might be reduced (this is California’s actual water policy). Other times they’re just excuses for extreme NIMBYism.
higher quality schools
Well, in the US the rule of thumb is that the more control government exercises over schools the worse they are.
In the countries I’m most familiar with the socialized health care system is something you want to avoid if you have an alternative.l
Kind of trueish but, not in a way that supports your point, Public healthcare systems tend to be run on something of a shoe string, so an Individual who can easily afford private treatment is often better off with that option, However, that does not translate to the total population or average person.. Analogously , the fact that travelling in a chauffeur limo is more pleasant than travelling on a train, for those who can afford it, is no justification for dismantling public transportation systems. And it’s not either/or, anyway.
other stupid government policies.
Ok stupid government bad. But what’s the relationship between large government and stupid government? Large government has at least the capacity to hire expert consultants, and implement checks and balances. And there’s plenty of examples of autocratic rulers who were batshit crazy.
Well these days a lot of environmental protection laws are insane,
In the US? Doesn’t generalize.
Well, in the US the rule of thumb is that the more control government exercises over schools the worse they are.
Public healthcare systems tend to be run on something of a shoe string
Um. Do you mean the money allocated in the budget for the healthcare system or the money that actually trickles down to the actual doctors? Because the former tends to be larger than the latter.
Taxpayers don’t like paying tax, which is the incentive to keep down costs in a public healthcare system, and it works because they are all cheaper than the US system.
Taxpayers don’t like poor quality healthcare either. And degraded from what? It’s not like there was ever a golden age where the average person had top quality and affordable healthcare, and then someone came along and spoiled everything. Public healthcare is like public transport: it’s not supposed to be the best in-money-is-no-object terms, it is supposed to better than nothing.
And lets remind ourselves that, factually, a number of public healthcare systems deliver equal .or better results to the US system for less money.
But they have to solve a rational ignorance and a collective action problem to do something about it.
And lets remind ourselves, again, that, factually, a number of public healthcare systems deliver equal .or better results to the US system for less money. So it looks like they have.
Because ineffective corporations continuing to exist is less bad in terms of human suffering than major economic collapse.
Raising the spectre of “major economic collapse” at the notion that big corporations might have to operate under the same market conditions and risks as everyone else seems like an argument straight from a corporate lobbyist.
Don’t government rescues reward poor management and incentivise excessive risk, thus leading to economic troubles which necessitate them in the first place? It is not at all clear to me that the hypothetical world in which bailouts don’t happen and corporations know it and act accordingly contains more suffering.
Especially after you consider the costs imposed on the competent to rescue the failures, and the cost to the economy from uneven competition (between those who can afford to take bigger risks, or simply manage themselves sloppier, knowing that they are “too big to fail”, and those who cannot).
Raising the spectre of “major economic collapse” at the notion that big corporations might have to operate under the same market conditions and risks as everyone else seems like an argument straight from a corporate lobbyist.
Calling it a spectre makes it sound mythical, but it has been known to happen. The fallacy lies in not having sufficient evidence it will happen in any particular case.
Don’t government rescues reward poor management and incentivise excessive risk, thus leading to economic troubles which necessitate them in the first place?
You can reduce risky behaviour by regulation. Baillouts without regulation is the worst possible word.
Especially after you consider the costs imposed on the competent to rescue the failures, and the cost to the economy from uneven competition (between those who can afford to take bigger risks, or simply manage themselves sloppier, knowing that they are “too big to fail”, and those who cannot).
Bailouts involve disutility. My argument is that by spreading the costs over more people and more time, they entail less suffering.
Because I didn’t see a point, just a bunch of straw.
Because ineffective corporations continuing to exist is less bad in terms of human suffering than major economic collapse.
First, I don’t think that is true. Second, there was a bit of sleight of hand—you replaced the failure of large corporations with “major economic collapse”. That’s, um, not exactly the same thing :-/
Because I didn’t see a point, just a bunch of straw.
Free free to specify the non straw versions.
Because ineffective corporations continuing to exist is less bad in terms of human suffering than major economic collapse.
First, I don’t think that is true.
Feel free to support that claim with an argument. There are good reasons for thinking that the collapse of a large financial institution, in particular can cause a domino affect. It’s happened before. And it’s hardly debatable that recessions cause suffering...the suicide rate goes up, for one thing.
Second, there was a bit of sleight of hand—you replaced the failure of large corporations with “major economic collapse”. That’s, um, not exactly the same thing :-/
Even if the tax cut are funded by reduction in government spending why would that imply a reduction of government power?
They don’t necessarily have to, but generally do. For instance during austerity measures spending is generally reduced in most areas. Police forces have less funding and thus lose the ability to have as great an effect on an area, that is they have less power. Unless you’re talking about power as a state of laws instead of a state of what is physically done to people?
Do you think UK had an austerity period recently?
Well, yes, it was all over the news. This feels like a trick question. Are you about to tell me that spending went up during the recession or something?
You have good instincts :-) Yes, this was a trap: behold.
Then what was all that stuff on the news about cutting government jobs, trying desperately to ensure frontline services weren’t effected and so on about?
Edit: I knew it! No wonder I felt so confused. It would seem the reduction in spending just took a while to come into effect. Take a look at the years after 2011 that your chart is missing. Unfortunately it’s not adjusted for inflation but you still get the idea. If you change category to protection and the subcategory to ‘police’, ‘prisons’ or ‘law courts’, you can see the reduction in police funding over the course of the recession.
So, my trap backfired? Ouch. :-( I guess I should be more careful about where I dig them :-) But I shall persevere anyway! :-D
First, let me point out that the UK public spending contracted for a single year (2013) and 2014 is already projected to top all previous years. That’s not a meaningful contraction.
Second, we are talking about the power of the government. Did you feel this power lessened is some way around 2013? Sure, some programs were cut or didn’t grow as fast as some people wanted, but is there any discernible way in which the government was weaker in 2013 than it was in 2012?
Fewer police on the street, for one. I’ve seen declining numbers of officers in my visits to the UK since probably around late 2010.
That’s true, it seems in England and Wales the number of police officers dropped by about 10% since the peak of 2009 (source).
Right, it’s time we got back on track. Now that we using the same definition of power and we’ve come to the conclusion that a reduction in tax revenues can reduce physical projection of power but is unlikely to remove the laws that determine what maximum level of power is legally allowed to be projected.
I believe you were talking about optimal levels of power when compared to growth?
Not at all. I was talking about optimal levels of power from the point of view of my system of values.
Right, well would you please continue? I believe the question that started all this off was how do you know said theory corresponds to reality.
Which particular theory? You asked why do I want the reduce the power of the government and what does that mean. I tried to answer to the best of my ability, but there is no falsifiable theory about my values. They are what they are.
A theory of government is not an terminal value, it is an instrumental one. You believe that that particular way of government will make people happy/autonomous/free/healthy/whatever your value system is. What is lacking is evidence that this particular government actually achieves those aims. It’s a reasonable a priori argument, but so are dozens of other arguments for other governments. We need to distinguish which reality we are actually living in. By what metric can your goals be measured and where would you expect them to be highest? Are there countries/states trying this and what is the effect? Are there countries doing the exact opposite and what would you expect to be the result of that? Your belief must be falsifiable or else it is permeable to flour and meaningless. Stage a full crisis of faith if you have to. No retreating into a separate magesterium, why do you believe what you believe?
Which “this particular government”? I don’t think I’m advocating any specific government. May I point you here?
My preferences neither are nor need to be falsifiable.
Why do I believe what?
That large government is worse than small government.
Because a larger government takes more of my money, because it limits me in certain areas where I would prefer not to be limited, and because it has scarier and more probable failure modes.
It finally makes sense, you’re looking at it from a personal point of view. Consider it from the view of the average wellbeing of the entire populace. Zoom out to consider the entire country, the full system of which the government is just a small part. A larger government has more probable failure modes, but a small one simply outsources its failure modes to companies and extremely rich individuals. Power abhors a vacuum.
You and I are not large enough or typical enough for considerations about our optimality to enter into the running of a country. People are eternal and essentially unchanging, the average level of humanity rises but slowly. The only realistic way to improve their lot is to change the situation in which the decision is made. The structure of the system they flow through is too important to be left to market forces and random chance. I don’t care much if it inconveniences me so long as on average the lot of humanity is improved.
Edit: I fully expect you to disagree with me, but at least that’s one mystery solved.
Sure. A larger government takes more of their money, limits them in areas where they would prefer to be not limited, and has scarier and more probable failure modes.
No, I don’t think so, not the really scary failure modes. Things like Pol Pot’s Kampuchea cannot be outsourced.
The second half of that sentence contradicts the first half.
I don’t know of anyone who proposes random chance as a guiding political principle. As to the market forces, well, they provide the best economy human societies have ever seen. A lot of people thought they could do better—they all turned out to be wrong.
You’re still missing a minor part—showing that a large government does indeed do that better compared to a smaller one. By the way, are you saying that the current government size and power (say, typical for EU countries) are optimal? too small?
You misunderstand me. I am not saying that a large government is definitely better. I’m simply playing devils advocate. I find it worrying that you can’t find any examples of good things in larger government though. Do socialised single payer healthcare, lower crime rates due to more police, better roads, better infrastructure, environmental protections and higher quality schools not count as benefit? These are all things that require taxes and can be improved with greater spending on them.
Edit: In retrospect maybe this is how a changed humanity looks already. That seems to fit the reality better.
Of course I can. Recall me talking about the multidimensionality of government power and how most people (including me) would prefer more in one dimension but less in another. On the whole I would prefer a weaker government, but not necessarily in every single aspect.
However I would stress once again the cost-benefit balance. More is only better is you’re below the optimal point, go above it and more will be worse.
And neither of us have the evidence required to find this point (if indeed it is just one point instead of several optimal peaks). I’m tapping out. If you have any closing points I’ll try to take them into account in my thinking. Regardless, it seems like we agree on more than we disagree on.
Some of these things are, some aren’t. Let’s go through the list:
In the countries I’m most familiar with the socialized health care system is something you want to avoid if you have an alternative.
Ok, those are examples. Even if the the crime rates that make more police necessary are due to other stupid government policies.
Well these days a lot of environmental protection laws are insane, as in we must divert water from the farms because if we don’t the delta smelt population might be reduced (this is California’s actual water policy). Other times they’re just excuses for extreme NIMBYism.
Well, in the US the rule of thumb is that the more control government exercises over schools the worse they are.
Kind of trueish but, not in a way that supports your point, Public healthcare systems tend to be run on something of a shoe string, so an Individual who can easily afford private treatment is often better off with that option, However, that does not translate to the total population or average person.. Analogously , the fact that travelling in a chauffeur limo is more pleasant than travelling on a train, for those who can afford it, is no justification for dismantling public transportation systems. And it’s not either/or, anyway.
Ok stupid government bad. But what’s the relationship between large government and stupid government? Large government has at least the capacity to hire expert consultants, and implement checks and balances. And there’s plenty of examples of autocratic rulers who were batshit crazy.
In the US? Doesn’t generalize.
Ditto.
Um. Do you mean the money allocated in the budget for the healthcare system or the money that actually trickles down to the actual doctors? Because the former tends to be larger than the latter.
I believe that private healthcare deliverers have nonzero administrative costs as well.
http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/usversuseurope/
Yes, but they actually have incentives to keep those costs down.
Taxpayers don’t like paying tax, which is the incentive to keep down costs in a public healthcare system, and it works because they are all cheaper than the US system.
To the extend this incentive exists its fulfilled by degrading quality rather than improving efficiency.
Taxpayers don’t like poor quality healthcare either. And degraded from what? It’s not like there was ever a golden age where the average person had top quality and affordable healthcare, and then someone came along and spoiled everything. Public healthcare is like public transport: it’s not supposed to be the best in-money-is-no-object terms, it is supposed to better than nothing.
And lets remind ourselves that, factually, a number of public healthcare systems deliver equal .or better results to the US system for less money.
But they have to solve a rational ignorance and a collective action problem to do something about it.
And lets remind ourselves, again, that, factually, a number of public healthcare systems deliver equal .or better results to the US system for less money. So it looks like they have.
Even the former is much smaller than what you guys pay in the US.
Such things are referred to as ‘safety nets’ for a reason. Falling from the tightrope still isn’t advised.
Larger government gives more and invests more...governments don’t just burn money.
Large government doesn’t automatically mean less freedom...the average person in mediaeval Europe was not particularly free.
Large government can rescue large corporations when they fail....
You seem to be well on the roads towards the “if you want a small government why don’t you GO AND LIVE IN SOMALIA” argument....
And why in the world would that be a good thing?
Why not answer the points I actually made?
Because ineffective corporations continuing to exist is less bad in terms of human suffering than major economic collapse.
Raising the spectre of “major economic collapse” at the notion that big corporations might have to operate under the same market conditions and risks as everyone else seems like an argument straight from a corporate lobbyist.
Don’t government rescues reward poor management and incentivise excessive risk, thus leading to economic troubles which necessitate them in the first place? It is not at all clear to me that the hypothetical world in which bailouts don’t happen and corporations know it and act accordingly contains more suffering.
Especially after you consider the costs imposed on the competent to rescue the failures, and the cost to the economy from uneven competition (between those who can afford to take bigger risks, or simply manage themselves sloppier, knowing that they are “too big to fail”, and those who cannot).
Calling it a spectre makes it sound mythical, but it has been known to happen. The fallacy lies in not having sufficient evidence it will happen in any particular case.
You can reduce risky behaviour by regulation. Baillouts without regulation is the worst possible word.
Bailouts involve disutility. My argument is that by spreading the costs over more people and more time, they entail less suffering.
Because I didn’t see a point, just a bunch of straw.
First, I don’t think that is true. Second, there was a bit of sleight of hand—you replaced the failure of large corporations with “major economic collapse”. That’s, um, not exactly the same thing :-/
Free free to specify the non straw versions.
Feel free to support that claim with an argument. There are good reasons for thinking that the collapse of a large financial institution, in particular can cause a domino affect. It’s happened before. And it’s hardly debatable that recessions cause suffering...the suicide rate goes up, for one thing.
No, and it’s not completely disjoint , neither.