Once in a while you encounter people that want to limit government. They invoke times when we were more self reliant, when the government “didn’t wipe our asses for us “. I think few people are interested in that kind of intrusion. When government engages in activities that restrict unreasonably the rights of the individual citizen, to the point of harm with no recognizable good in return, then we can act to limit such overreach.
For many, harm is discerned in terms of personal benefit/loss and often with an economic component. I pay CPP. That is my contribution to the pensions of Canadians who have reached the age of retirement. Before I get to draw a dime of pension I will have worked 47 years. The CPP helps to support the people that built the Canada I now enjoy. Can I use the money myself? Sure could. But I do understand that old people living in poverty is an ugly thing. CPP doesn’t provide a huge sum, people should still try to save for their old age, but it helps. Everyone giving a little to support those in need, hardly government overreach.
If you ever get to meet a small government conservative/libertarian ask them what services they don’t want? The list is long: food and drug safety, labour regulations, product safety, environmental regulation, building codes, judicial system road building and maintenance water quality. There are thousands of things the government runs outright or regulates on our behalf that we could not afford to do or have to power to do by our selves. A libertarian/conservative response might be to privatize it. “Business does everything better than government” this is the unquestioned mantra of this group. Add to this notion the belief that people can and should take care of them selves leaves protection of property as the only role for Government to play. Again I state that citizens should do as much for themselves that they can. Life is better when you work and contribute, but all things are not equal and sometimes you need help.
So I think we come to the point where liberals diverge from small government crowd. It is clear that this group doesn’t need the services provided by Liberal Democratic governments or they don’t think they do. If I am a person of means, I pay a substantial amount of taxes, unless I have worked the tax code to reduce that amount. In terms of direct contribution to government and expected return through programs the wealthy are a net loss. They don’t require big programs like CPP, EI and income substitute programs, subsidized education and medical services. They have the means to acquire the same services better tailored to meet their needs. So if a person of wealth doesn’t like supporting big government and the higher taxes that result I can understand if disagreeing strongly. It would take a separate post to describe the indirect benefits that accrue to persons of means just by living in a modern liberal democracy.
What I find myself less able to understand is how citizens of limited means can decry taxation and declare the evils big government. On purely economic grounds the person of moderate means gets more directly from government then they pay out in contribution. It is like insurance. Many people contribute keeping costs low and you always have fewer claiming benefits than paying in. The risk is spread out so everyone can gain access. This especially true of income replacement or supplement programs.
I think that citizens of limited means oppose government not on economic grounds but because of some other factor(s), issues of a religious, cultural and social nature. They support the positions that harm them economically in return for the promise of government legislation favouring their particular positions. It is a jumble of things. If you support a ban on abortion that is more government intrusion not less, same with those against gay marriage. Anti gun control involves less government and decreased public safety, a bad trade. In Canada social conservative voters have failed to achieve meaningful legislative success while their fiscal conservative brothers have done much better.
What we need from government is an easy to read accounting of how our money is spent. People need to see the ledger and see the benefits that are provided by Government and show the costs to us in the absence of such programs. Information like that will take away much of the force of the small government argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment