Progress Through State Violence or Smaller Government?
Progressives can't imagine progress without government force

Obamacare! The War on Drugs! A War on Poverty! Prohibition! The idea that government will bring social progress isn't new.
Europe's monarchs believed in big government long before there was a Soviet Union or a welfare state. Eighteenth-century philosopher Voltaire praised "enlightened" monarchs like Prussia's Frederick the Great. Since the nineteenth century, so-called "progressives" have wanted government to get ever larger. They got their wish. The results were not so good for people.
Today pundits and protesters moan about fiscal "austerity" in nations like Greece. But if austerity means cuts in government, there hasn't been much of it.
Sure, Greece cut spending, but only by 3 percent. One in four Greek workers still works for government (vs. one in seven in the U.S.). Greek politicians run government "businesses" that employ politicians' cronies. In other words, Greece has barely begun what I would call austerity.
Paul Krugman deceitfully trashes real cuts and writes that he wants to see "some example, somewhere, of austerity policies that succeeded."
But there are plenty. The Cato Institute's Chris Edwards and Dan Mitchell discussed some at FreedomFest, a giant gathering of people who care about free markets held last week in Las Vegas. Mitchell points out that Ireland, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada and the Netherlands cut government spending and were quicker to recover from economic problems.
In the mid-90s, Canada was going broke, so the government cut its budget by about 10 percent. The growth that followed allowed Canada to cut its debt dramatically—from about 68 percent of GDP to 28 percent. During that same decade, unemployment shrank. Canada's economy grew faster than that of every other G7 nation. Good things happened not because government spent more, but because it spent less.
The U.S. contains its own version of the Greek debt crisis in the form of Puerto Rico.
A recent island governor tried to cut Puerto Rico's bloated government. Luiz Fortuno fired thousands of workers and made it easier to open a business. The economy improved. But firing workers isn't popular. Fortuno lost the next election and his successor increased spending and raised taxes. Of course that didn't work. Now Puerto Rico can't pay its $70 billion debt.
"Are there any success stories based on tax hikes or bigger government? The answer is no," warns Mitchell.
Progressives pretend they have a technical fix for problems. On a national level, their fixes always involve giving more power to Washington, D.C. That soothes the left, since they love the idea of centralizing decision-making.
For a while, around the start of the twentieth century, technology advanced while government grew. Intellectuals thought the two things must go hand in hand. Government electrified rural areas! It can do anything!
Well, government can do some things, mostly expensive, obvious things, like building interstate highways, guarding borders and going to war—though government doesn't do those things efficiently. Almost all its projects end up way over budget and behind schedule.
"Centralization of government spending in Washington over the past century has severely undermined good governance," argues Edwards on the site he edits, DownsizingGovernment.org. "Citizens get worse outcomes when funding and decision-making for education, infrastructure and other things are made by the central government rather than state and local governments and the private sector."
Politicians rarely notice the millions of tiny opportunities for people to make progress via new inventions and smarter ways of doing things—the new app, the robotics start-up, the do-it-yourself metalworking printer.
Instead, politicians' limited imaginations lean toward big government-run projects like building bigger airports (needed or not), more welfare and micromanaging every private workplace.
"Politicians and lobby groups constantly complain that America does not spend enough," writes Edwards. "But they rarely discuss how to ensure efficiency in (government) spending, or cite any advantages of federal spending over state, local and private spending."
Government shovels more money into its big, dumb projects and pretends to build the future. But our future is more likely to be built by thousands of entrepreneurs who make the countless contributions that quietly improve our lives.
COPYRIGHT 2015 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And another fine piece by The Stash that won't be read by the people who most need to.
Calm down, progressives know what's best for you. Their central committee is pro-choice. They will choose and mandate what's best.
Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com
Wait a minute, it's not noon yet...
John Stossel wrote: "Government shovels more money into its big, dumb projects and pretends to build the future."
Great! Then I look forward to conservatives and other non-progressive sorts cutting back the number of "big, dumb projects" the US is involved in.
Like its multi-trillion-dollar wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, both of which were started by a conservative administration.
Now I mention that because those who oppose the new proposed agreement with Iran tend to be of conservative bent. They also seem to think that a war with Iran would be better than that agreement. Meaning that if Congress rejects that agreement America might yet find itself embarking on yet another "big, dumb" (and expensive) project.
John Stossel wrote: "The U.S. contains its own version of the Greek debt crisis in the form of Puerto Rico."
Why stop with Puerto Rico? The US has its own debt problem. The US federal debt is currently running at 101.5% of US GDP. Check out the second of the two graphs at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
That graph graphically illustrates that the current problem the US has with its national debt began under the Reagan administration and was exacerbated under the George W. Bush administration, both of them of conservative bent.
Conservatives who live in glass houses should NOT be throwing stones at progressives.
If any conservatives stop by, we'll be sure to tell them.
Two wrongs make a right...therefore we need big gov and more spending!!!
/prog
Obama and bush are pretty similar. Arent you throwing stones here?
As far as your iran comment....i havent seen any calls for war with iran so at best you are speculating...maybe even projecting your desires
I will give you Iraq. But Afghanistan was the "good war". Remember in Iraq we took our eyes off the ball, meaning fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? And we DIDN't start the war in Afghanistan shithead. The Taliban, which was the de facto govt in Afghanistan trained the men who attacked us and harbored the leader of that organization. Had they given up Bin Laden, we wouldn't have invaded in the first place. Not that I support the nation building we have tried. Those stone age goat fuckers should be left to their own bullshit.
The national debt problem under Reagan, while we were dealing with the SOVIET FUCKING UNION, and by the way, for a significant period of time a democrat controlled Congress. And those of us libertarians (small l) who still vote mostly with the stupid party, argued AGAINST much of Bush's spending. We argued AGAINST Medicare prescription coverage, more spending in Africa etc.
And NO ONE is remotely suggesting that we fight a war in Iran. Just leave the existing sanctions in place dipshit!
Yea he created a strawman and used exaggeration...bush seems closer to being a dem
Your quote didnt even mention progressives but rather government in general.
The mention of progressives in the article is about central planning which shows how they are part of the big gov problem. It was never stated they were the only part.
Progress is movement towards a destination.
Progressive is when something in happening gradually.
Maybe a good example of 'progressive' relative to politics might be when no therapy is reducing the growth of a cancer.
Progress, on the other hand, is when the therapy is working.
Of those I know who claim to be conservative, it only means living within their means, and not being wasteful or destructive, NOT returning to slavery or any other definition which has been promoted by the Left, Progressives, Communists, Socialists, Collectivists, or Democrats ALL of which I view as closely related to one another with similar political views and agenda.
Science: The Antidote To The Toxin Of Fear
"And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." -John 8:32
The fundamental appeal of Donald Trump is that he says that which many people think but are afraid to say, and he says that which the mealy-mouthed, feckless, hypocritical Republican candidates never would dream of saying with the possible exception of Ted Cruz.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
A majority of productive Americans fears its government or should. A majority of productive Americans understands that the federal government has become corrupt, self-serving, and tyrannical.
It's time for a new and different political party ... an apolitical party based upon the science of human behavior. Can there be such a thing? Yes.
Politicians will fight it. Lawyers will fight it. Ideologues will fight it. Members of the Big Media will fight it.
Read. Learn. Think. Act.
Science says, "Behavior has its consequences."
http:inescapableconsequences.com
You know who else used "science" for their political goals?
Galileo?
J. Stossel said : 'Government ....... pretends to build the future."
It pretends to do a lot of things. However, its core nature is 100% criminal.
The pretense of doing [whatever] is a necessary cover to attempt to legitimize its actions, which all boil down to a combination of violence [or the threat thereof], theft, and slavery, nothing more, nothing less.
Via public "education" it has been largely successful in brainwashing the booboisie into believing that it is a legitimate non criminal organization with only the individuals and society's best interests at heart.
Point in case: it appears that after all these years, even Mr Stossel has been successfully brainwashed into believing in its necessity to build interstate highways :-).
"In your dream, Obama is not a scam"
"In your dream, George Bush was not a scam"
"In your dream, Clinton was not a scam"
"In your dream, Reagan was not a scam"
"In your dream, all the rest were not a scam"
"In your dream, the constitution was not a scam"......."
But by all means, dream on John !!!! 🙂
Quotes from original music and lyrics: "Dreams[ Anarchist Blues]": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o-C1_LZzk
Regards, onebornfree.
Personal Freedom Consultant:
http://www.freedominunfreeworld.blogspot.com
In the grand compromise that creates a libertarian state, we plan on giving the proggies the roads. They are obsessed with them.
LOLz
Hw wouldn't be Kruggernuts if he wasn't a lying, mendacious cunt.
I think it's widely understood that Krugman is paid to be a shill.
What's the deal with all the fucking blog whoreing and drive by dipshits in this thread?
I think one of the best examples of how cut in government spending and regulations have worked is India.
The only sector where India remains globally competitive is in IT outsourcing which government did not even know existed untill tax revenue started pouring in.
Post 1992 wherever government conceded space, that industry grew rapidly. Aviation, Courier, Telecom, Hospitality and even Healthcare.
On the other hand Agriculture and Education remains one of the worst and and inefficient systems in the world.
Proof of the value of government spending on medical problems?
Drug Prohibition.
Part I
As usual, Stossel makes excellent points grounded in facts. My only disagreement with was his wording of "Well, government can do some things, mostly expensive, obvious things, like building interstate highways, guarding borders and going to war?though government doesn't do those things efficiently." Even then, government doesn't 'DO' anything more than acquire the revenue necessary to fund those things, which in the end are accomplished by people/private enterprises, but yes government and many voters accept government need not factor means in spending, resulting in inefficiency.
Part II
Article IV, Section 4, guarantees each State in the Union a Republican Form of Government, not a Centralized Collectivist Form of Government ruled by the agenda of a political party. Freedom begins with the people, each and every one of us, and it is the duty of our government at each level to protect our rights to exercise our own choices, even if they result in our failure, and only protect us from choices of others being imposed upon us in ways which are harmful to us. Societies are built and grown as a result of people seeing value in one another, which leads to them providing charitable assistance and/or protection to others they find in need by their own free choice. Beginning in the 20th century our Federal government has gradually shifted our government from being one beginning with the people empowering the government into one in which the government itself determines where, if any, limits of constraint exist on its power. This has been accomplished by the appointment of activist Supreme Court Justices who have and continue to interpret our Constitution based on the agenda of the political party where their biases reside.
Austerity as practised by most governments means more taxes on their citizens, not less spending by governments. Yet by confounding the two, citizens who don't recognize the distinction naturally object to austerity, although it's not government-austerity, it's citizen-austerity.
After the election, Greece's new Syriza politicians resumed profligate spending - they rehired a few thousand government employees who'd previously been let go and reopened the State Broadcasting company which had been closed.
The problem is that when most governments, apart from the Germans, spend too much, their policitian's reaction is to tax citizens more, rather than spend less. As Margaret Thatcher pointed out, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run ouf of other people's money to spend...
lol wat
So, Libertarians should instead oppose cuts to govt spending? I'd think there's valid Libertarian arguments for slashing govt spending regardless of whether it induces societal prosperity.
Michael,
Either I don't understand your point or I misread the article for which you provided a link. If I understood the article correctly, the Canadian government was preventing individuals who were waiting for government-covered treatments from buying private insurance so that they could receive medical treatment right away rather wait in queues.
This seems to contradict what I took to be one of your main points, not support them.
If you were actually knowledgeable about the situation here, you'd know that long wait times are not solvable by spending. It's the fucking shortage of doctors that is the overriding problem.
Why is there a shortage of doctors? Because many doctors don't want to work in a system where the government dictates to them exactly how many patients they must see each hour, for how many hours each day, and even (in QC) which language they are allowed to speak to those patients in, regardless of how the patient and they feel about it. The result is that many doctors leave the province or even the country rather than be micromanaged like that. A good percentage of the ones that stay opt to work in private clinics that don't accept government insurance.
As usual with people of your ilk, you think it all comes down to giving the government more money to throw around and more control to exercise over everyone. It is the only solution you are allowed to consider. It's like the guy with a hammer who perceives everything in the world as a nail.
Long queues do not result from lack of spending but from a demand/supply imbalance. In a free market revenue would increase with the increase in demand and solve the imbalance. But a socialist, centrally planned system cannot keep up with variations in supply and demand and will always result in perpetual shortages and gluts. This was/is a problem of ideology--not revenue.
So, you're for socialism, Michael?
Socialized medicine is an expensive boondoggle and it's the Libertarians fault! Libertarians should support increased government spending and market manipulation for the goal of properly functioning, government controlled health care system!
This is your argument, isn't it?
Your argument seems to be that not providing enough healthcare kills people. Our obvious argument is that if it hadn't been socialized in the first place, this would never have been a problem, meaning that socializing it is actually what killed people: a more fundamental causal relationship.
"When you ask 'em, how much should we give? The only answer: more more more."
-CCR
Hihn, you really should just label yourself a progressive and be done with it.
Lack of government spending killed thousands of Canadians. I knew you were a moron, but you usually place a bunch of layers between your idiocy and the truth. This was basically ripping the mask off for you. I hope you learned something about yourself, at least, you fucking statist twat.
If mandatory government healthcare is a threat to human life, I would think less of it would be an improvement, not more.
I think your "If A then B" argument is sound.
Not sure where Hihn was trying to go with that (though obviously the idiot thought he was making a point against libertarianism and personal responsibility). Canada couldn't pay for their bloated welfare state, so the court was going to wave a magic wand and make it happen? huh?
Well, they can force Canada to take on more debt again, apparently. That's the sort of ruling that makes the American Supreme Court look like a bunch of King Solomon's. Now Canada's debt has doubled as the idiots and is back at half the GDP. Spending increases are outpacing economic growth.
In a word, the left that loves the word sustainability so much should consider it with economics. But they'd rather declare things like healthcare to be rights despite what a bastardization of the word that is.
Obviously, the government just needs to force doctors to stay and provide care. Some law that limits where they can move to. And pass a law that there needs to be x number of doctors to patients.
See? Problem solved. That way, Canadians get their right to healthcare.
Why am I able to understand Mike Hihn, & the rest of you not? He's saying that jus because you have goods that are good but not selling so well doesn't mean you should try to sell them by exaggerating the claims for their goodness or presenting the facts about them in a way that ignores their flaws. Merely cutting gov't spending in Canada had benefits, but doing so w/o changes to their system of medicine also had drawbacks that lead to a policy rebound against the reform.
I've brought this up in cx with spending on gov't schools. Fortunately libertarians primarily promote policy changes to improve schooling. If we focused on spending to the exclusion of all other factors, we'd try to get some spending cuts in gov't schools, but while everything else about how they're run & funded stayed the same, we'd just wind up w shitty schools & a probably less efficient expenditure of $. You could similarly save $ superficially by stopping construction of a bridge that's 80% complete. Or you could stop sending ammunition to soldiers in the field at war.
Just because libertarians have good ideas about policy that would lead to big savings in all those areas doesn't mean that any savings by any means would bring about good policy.
Government spending can crowd out private investment or lead to excessive monetary inflation, both of which are obviously deleterious to prosperity. Curtailing said spending isn't a terrible idea.
You have a point (and can bring it up in an intelligible way, unlike Hihn). However, much like how the anti-open borders crowd insist that the welfare system be uprooted before you can allow more immigration, and that government must get out of marriage before it allows gay marriage, your argument has a massive problem.
Government does "A" and the result is bad/evil. Government also does "B" and the result is bad/evil. If you undo "A" and not "B", "B" will be worse than it now is. Should you undo "A"?
Of course you should, as you cannot morally do "A" either way. The results may even be worse than if you didn't stop "A", but we aren't Utilitarians, we have principles. If "B" gets worse, then that is an argument for destroying "B" next, not an argument to keep doing "A".
Which isn't a bad argument, and I was tempted to infer that this is what he was really trying to say. But it's difficult to parse that message through the near apoplectic tone of his usual rantings.
This dilemma has a practical component to it as well. As a would-be Libertarian fiscal reformer would somehow need to scrutinize every layer of govt bureaucracy down to the local level, to assure that cuts are prioritized responsibly where they ought to be. Else you end up with entrenched bureaucrats + reform opponents swindling to cut off the more vital services instead, and then blaming the reformer ? la, "look what he/she made us do, spending cuts are bad."
Though given the sheer complexity of govt bureaucratic administration, this aspect is probably insurmountable from the top-down. So the only way forward would simply be to cut spending, and let the political chips fall where they may.
Did you really just assert a ? trademark on a comments section post? Lol.
Keeo on crying Hinh. Maybe if you whine loud enough someone just might take you seriously.
Sup with all this hyperbolic posturing? Kind of ironic to see you make sweeping indictments of others being tribal ooga-boogas, but I digress?
To clarify: I never attacked your argument, was just trying to make sense of it since you aren't coming off coherently.
And to a point, I agree with what Robert explained?cutting spending by itself isn't necessarily conducive to good policy in lieu of sound reforms. But reasonable reforms to presently dysfunctional institutions aren't going to occur without attendant cuts in spending either.
Is there supposed to be an actual argument in there? I don't see it.
No libertarian could be for government healthcare. How about you just explain that one for us?
Not equating human lives to political chips. Just pointing out that the accreted layers of intractable bureaucracy & political infighting within 'the system' will tend to grind most pro-liberty institutional reforms to a halt. Meaning there'll have to be cuts to spending in order for actual positive change to occur.
I look at both. In brief, I think most people intuitively understand (and desire) liberty, yet a philosophical sleight of hand occurred during the Enlightenment such that people began to conceive government as liberty's guarantor?which is a fundamentally unworkable notion. Ultimately, one can't be pro-liberty without being anti-government.
You'd need to somehow prove that the spending cuts directly killed people, rather than the irresponsible bureaucracies' misallocation of funds that killed people.
Your welcome you old crank.
=D
A mere court-ordered reversal of spending cuts doesn't prove that the funds weren't bureaucratically misallocated.
de jure ? de facto
You're not a libertarian, you're an incoherent fag defending a tired, bankrupt collectivist ideology on a libertarian website. Get a life dude.
Out of compassion for the less fortunate, I tried his link. Silly me.
404 Server Error - Page Not Found.
Free shit = liberty!
See Ron Paul's "repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing."
Which is one of the best ideas to come out of anywhere in the last hundred years.
When you put out a fire. . . what do you replace it with? Nothing.
When you extract a bullet from a gunshot victim, what do you replace it with? Nothing.
When you remove a brain tumor - what do you replace it with? Nothing!
Troll Fail.
Next?