Fohat– thanks for your response. There are several things at the core of my resistance to big government, and I'm willing to sacrifice many personal conveniences to protect the individual from the abuse of a too-far reaching central body.
Before stating my concerns, I'd rather identify where I believe we share common ground.
I think, foremost, we are both concerned about people and how we can best relieve them of unnecessary troubles when we have the power to do so. I suspect that you, like I, not only theorize about this but tangibly act on this by doing various things like donating money and goods, volunteering at school and community events, helping at shelters, etc.
I think we both have a strong sense of justice and fairness, and actively get involves to help balance the scales when possible.
I think we are both passionate about ideas and we have to be mindful not to attack the individual when we really mean to only challenge their views.
I believe that people can share many core values, and yet their backgrounds can lead them to radically different solutions. One area that you and I differ on is the role of the central government in providing assistance to the underprivileged. It's not that I'm against providing help to those who need it; I can even see some advantages in having it managed on the federal level. Some of my concerns have to do with the inefficiencies of multi-layered bureaucracy and the increased opportunity for fraud (both by the recipient and the agency). My greatest concern, however, is that this process breeds, on one side a feeling of resentment , and on the other side a sense of entitlement. When the haves voluntarily give to the have nots, it fosters a contagious sense of charity and generosity in the giver and gratitude in the recipient. These traits are reduced when possessions are confiscated and redistributed by a central authority and the farther the authority is away the more the desired traits are diminished.
Closely related to public assistance is the governments role in assuring healthcare for all. I don't think a single payer universal healthcare plan is ideal but given the absolute mess we've made of the current system by obstructionists on both sides, I think it is probably the logical and inevitable solution. My concerns include further increases to the national debt, an ever-increasing dependence on the government, reduced availability of services for those who can afford more, and a shrinking sense of personal responsibility but I see no reasonable alternative.
Like you, I don't trust big business. I do agree with Adam Smith believing that self-interest drives a prosperous economy but won't go as far as Ayn Rand by calling selfishness a virtue. We have to have reasonable safeguards against powerful interests whether they be business, labor, or government. All entities want to say "mine" and the government is no exception. This is an area many of my progressive friends seem to ignore. Much like a lovestruck suitor believing his bride-to-be is perfect, I fear the honeymoon won't last long if the liberals get their wish and give even more power to the central government. We're all a bunch of dreamers at heart, believing that the changes we think we're instituting will be the ones we actually get. Even if we assume the governments motives are pure, the larger a central power is, the more its concerns have to be generalized and the less it can adapt to individual concerns forcing clumsy one size fits all solution to problems.
There are two tragedies in life. One is not to get your heart's desire. The other is to get it.
George Bernard Shaw
