The Morning Rant: Minimalist Edition

There is a lazy and ignorant assumption made by most media about the proper function of government, and more importantly...that there are no limits on those functions. Any discussion of government assumes axiomatically that large government controlling most aspects of life is an unalloyed good. The discussion then centers around policy differences between one faction of large-government supporters and another faction of larger-government supporters.

Here is a perfect example of that stupidity, brought to us by none other than Jonathan Chait, the liberal hack who has stained the pages of several well-known liberal outlets. Chait is a wonderful example of the that smug and superior progressive tone that "of course we are correct and everyone else is evil;" it just oozes from every sentence. But that doesn't surprise me: Jonathan Chait has a long and dishonest career demonizing the right and lionizing the left.

The Coming Democratic Civil War: A seemingly wonky debate about the "abundance agenda" is really about power.

The abundance agenda is a collection of policy reforms designed to make it easier to build housing and infrastructure and for government bureaucracy to work. Despite its cheerful name and earnest intention to find win-win solutions, the abundance agenda contains a radical critique of the past half century of American government. On top of that—and this is what has set off clanging alarms on the left—it is a direct attack on the constellation of activist organizations, often called “the groups,” that control progressive politics and have significant influence over the Democratic Party.

But I will let him have the first comment:

This is a fascinating article. It illustrates both the "true socialism has never been tried and we must do more socialism" and the "our intentions are pure therefore we must impose our rule at any cost" fallacies which allow these people to completely ignore whether any of their underlying beliefs about governments ability to create prosperity and "equality" are actually valid. The commentary about the Whigs and the Democrats ignores the reality that the government was impeding the societal change behind the growing anti slavery movement and completely misrepresented the origin of the Republican Party as a result of the abolitionist movement.

Think about who are the slaves created and perpetuated by further implementation of the "Progressive" school of thought.

But it is even worse. The empowerment of tiny pressure groups such as the lunatic environmentalists who hide their socialist agenda among the scrub brush and bait fish they claim to represent is seen not as the disenfranchisement of America, but as a policy issue. The destruction of states rights is simply ignored, because remember, the explicit assumption is that the federal government is a force for good...we just have to tweak it a bit to make it more efficient!

As I said to my friend: "An honest author would have examined the true counter-proposal to government control and NGO veto-power over almost everything -- minimalist government that allows the 50 states to return to their roles as crucibles of experimentation."

It is of course theoretically possible to improve the efficiency of government and ensure that its efforts are not simply a waste of taxpayer money with an accompanying destruction of our rights.

Theoretically.

But we have been trying for 250 years and have just gotten worse at it. So the counter-proposal of shrinking government to the basics is a powerful option.

But first we have to destroy the assumptions about government's proper role in society. We must question the shibboleths that the left holds dear, and start from the proposition that they are antithetical to a free society!

Why should government fund medical care for able-bodied people?
Why should government take our money for a country-wide retirement fund?
Why should government possess so much of the country's land?
Why should government be involved in the education of our children?
Why should government interfere in private property rights?

Francis Fukuyama wrote about how healthy societies acquire "social capital," which is nothing more than virtue. Dependability, trustworthiness, loyalty, honesty, etc. By allowing government to replace the functions of church, community, family, we are eroding the bedrock of society, which is the creation of that social capital. And that is exactly the goal of the progressive movement...the architects of big government!

They seek an America that is fragmented into pressure groups and racial groups and ethnic groups and class divisions, all of which are pitted against each other in a never-ending battle for government support.

Sounds like a dystopian hell-hole, and the alternative of small government that simply leaves us alone is a wonderful vision for our future.

[Crossposted at CutJibNewsletter and X/Twitter] And the Apple and Spotify feeds for CJN's podcast should be working!

posted by CBD at 11:00 AM

| Access Comments