Why do Republicans associate big government with less freedom?

You know, I just saw this comic, and it really kind of irks me.

Conservative Republicans kind of fail to understand that the Democratic Party is all about civil liberties, while Republicans insist that the government control people's lives by preventing gay marriage and abortions and such.

You see, It's kind of a paradox. In order to ensure people's freedom, the government needs to take action to make sure people cannot repress each others' freedom, which is, in itself, a restriction of freedom.

In other cases freedom can be a very bad thing. Large corporations, given the opportunity, will use their freedoms to do evil things. This is why we must place restrictions on corporations that prevent them from becoming too powerful.

^ While you're contradicting yourself, I'm inclined to agree with your basic message—perfect freedom is impossible in an imperfect world, due to corrupt individuals who'll abuse their own freedom to take away the freedoms of others. If you consider freedom a good thing, the question then becomes "What course of action promotes the greatest freedom?"

It can also be inverted the other way around too.I know a lot of corporations need to be prevented from becoming too big.But government can be too invasive that most of the time nothing can get done.Mostly because people don't want to follow a bunch of beauratic rules that will only way them down and properly do anything.Also goverment has been show in the pass to do rather unethical things.I mean it for both parties.Sometimes goverment spends too much on things that are wasteful and will not work in the future.

Come to think of it, the real issue here is one of hypocrisy—politicians who say they want to reduce government waste, and then support utterly worthless programs. (Incidentally, the bill I just linked was approved by both parties.)

edited 28th Aug '11 9:14:00 PM by feotakahari

@feo:

I'd agree with you all the more if you'd phrased it "perfect freedom is impossible in an imperfect world, due to total depravity."

^ Nah, taken exactly as written, total depravity doesn't prevent perfect freedom. If everyone did good solely because they got happy from making other people happy, then we could still have total freedom, so long as everyone did good. The issue is when someone gets happy (or at least rich, which seems to be a substitute for happy) from someone else's suffering.

edited 28th Aug '11 9:28:53 PM by feotakahari

I think Republicans just keep saying that because its so ingrained in our culture that personal freedom is the best thing fucking ever and that big governments should be always brought down by "the people."

People dont realize how important government is.

@feo:

Well, most people aren't sadists, but we are amorally selfish, so we apply our depraved reason to getting what we want most efficiently, and make others suffer.

Perfect freedom would basically be Hobbesian, and Hobbes was considered a liberal, so it all makes sense in the OP's context.

edited 28th Aug '11 9:32:26 PM by Rottweiler

Goverment is important which is why I do not support anarchy.However,goverment can become too big for its own good or turn into a monster.Government is a necessary thing but like all necessary things it can be abused.Government needs to have the necessary things to do its job but it can't do everything.And I agree corporations need to be limited but people on the left demonize them a little too much.It's not without justification but sometimes some people to the left think everything corporation eats babies for breakfast.

I think sometimes when people say they support government they hear "I support corrupt government"

I support a strong government but only if they are fair and competent.

The problem is you will always have corruption on both sides on the isle for governement,sadly.I thnk it would be impossible to have a strong government without also having corruption.Heck,I am not implying it's only one side its both and it's bad.That's problem with politics its always messy and you get an orgy of broken idealism.Now I am depressed.

I think the problem is its a self fufilling prophecy. Everyone assumes politics is a den of corruption so they let it happen.

Also I disagree with career politicians. You need politicians who go into it because they want to help people, not for the fringe benefits.

And lobbyism needs to be curbed. It promotes alot of corruption.

Sadly these problems are very deep, and it would require one hell of a movement to change it. Sadly every major movement is a populist movement that just wants "END THE GOVERNMENT" without knowing what that means. Or they just vote in new guys who have the same problem.

The other problem is where one person sees corruption, another person doesn't. A prime example is gay rights and reproductive health right now. The extreme right sees that simply allowing such things means that our government is ungodly, and therefore corrupt.

"And lobbyism needs to be curbed. It promotes alot of corruption."

A lobbyist is just someone paid to talk to legislators full-time. By the principle of specialization of labor, they'll always win over generalists.

Not every populist wants to end governemnt alot wants to make sure government isn't too big for its own good.

You might disagree on this but I despise abortion for many good reasons.I would like to see Planned Parenthood become a concreceptive only organization.

A government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have(not to mention that the United States were founded during classical liberalism's heyday). But more seriously, a large regulatory apparatous lends itself to abuse by its very nature - the more power you give the regulators, the more incentive they have to use that power in an... unbalanced manner. To use a contrived example, if all the regulation the government imposes on cars is that the wheels are round, the regulator's pretty much redundant and can only really just wave through what the market does anyway. However, if the government mandates the materials used for the fuel line, refridgerant and windows, the possibility of corruption opens up: companies that made competing materials will obviously see their business drastically reduced or even eliminated by government fiat and have an incentive to lobby the regulator to pick their product(add in patents and you give even more reasons for a company to lobby for such an absurd state of affairs).

Basically, a lot of the worst abuses that corporations get away with can be traced back to some regulation or privilege the government's enacted(especially prevelent when monpolies come into play - see the sad state of American telecommunications). If the government doesn't regulate beyond enforcing basic human rights(ie, the right to be secure in your person and property, not some fudged up "right" like "being treated nicely"), then there's almost nothing to corrupt.

Of course, the real reason Republicans cry for a smaller government is that the plebes'll vote for them if they do, nevermind the party's been in favor of corporate privilege from day one.

The problem with getting rid of "career politicians" is what you end up getting instead is a succession of empty figureheads, puppets who owe everything to their paymasters and do exactly what they're told. This is what the California Legislature has turned into after the passing of term limits for that body, and I see nothing to indicate that it would be atypical.

In addition to what joyflower said about populists, there are more options than "no government" and "big government", though from some of the posts in this thread one might think otherwise.

"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows."

Freedom isn't something of intrinsic value. It's a means only as good as the end towards which it is directed.

The problem with all these questions of big government is that, in the end, one truth remains: the strongest WILL force its law on the weakest

The government system allow to create an artificial strongest entity that can be in control of the weakest ones (i.e. the citizens who do not have millions upon millions). Without a strong government, the power will inevitably go to corporations, and most of the time, the ones leading those corpos will abuse this power for themselves (let's think a minute if there wouldn't be regulations for food quality, secondary effets in medicines, or simply labor laws... would you really trust with your lives the guys who abuse golden parachutes and made the whole financial system almost collapse?).

The system, whatever some survivalists says, cannot work without a Big Dog to frighten all the others into submission. With a strong enough government, you get a dog that will bark and bite any smaller dog trying to eat the chihuahuas (citizens). Of course, some control is needed to prevent the big dog to eat everyone, and this is why the democracy system exists.

The Western countries are trying to find that equilibrium, but when you are trying to find which way to go, just look across the Atlantic and ask yourself this simple question:

"The guys in Europe, with their bigger government, are they really less free than those in the U.S.? And, if so, how?"

If you do your research, then you'll have your answer for the way to go.

Also Big Goverment is not so different from Big Business and to be honest it can be even more two faced than Big Business because it always says its looking after you when in reality its just being as abusive of its powers as world Big Business.I am not arguing that Big Business can't be evil and needs to be looked at but at the same time Big Government can be as I call a bitch in sheep's clothing.Its acting like its taking care of your problem when in reality its just using the scare tactic of without its protection someone might take advantage of it.Government has its place but people should at least admit sometimes a guy that is stronger than the other guy can be just as oppressive and maybe even more.

At this point I'm wondering "What freedoms?" The only thing Americans are more free of that is obvious is gun laws.

I mean...I dont think anyone is going to get arrested for their religion in Sweden.

But maybe I'm ignorant.

I feel big government is the lesser of evils because a government has to still take care of its citizens, and can be voted out. Big corporations? Well in THEORY people can switch to a competitor but I dont think Koche is going anywhere anytime soon.

edited 28th Aug '11 11:05:49 PM by Thorn14

The big problem with all this is that freedom is a zero sum game when it matters. Different people have different ideas of what freedom entails. For me personally, it's true. Public corporations concern me much more than government. I think that a combination of the inherent corruption present in their innate structure of the public corporation (internal results matter more than the health of the entire structure, especially in the long term) as well as our inability to properly present effective negative incentives to encourage good behavior, these organizations are very dangerous. They provided a needed function, to be sure. But I think that's where our eyes should be.

Problems within the government are a different story. They're a reflection of the authoritarian aspects of our society. Nothing more, nothing less. I personally favor a small, responsive government. "Big Government"...I wont' call it a strawman, because I don't like that term....

Let me put it this way. I'd rather government focus on #1. limiting and correcting externalities (please note that I consider unemployment/low wages a MASSIVE externality) and #2. providing a secure market/society incentive structure. Now it turns out those two things are pretty big. They're not small. But that's what my idea of government should be doing.

The main error is that Republicans persum that less goverment influence, then it be more freedom. They see the opposite of this as "evil" or in their words "socialist." But Socialism is not this "evil theology" that the Republicans claim it to be but a style of notion that comments the weakness that less regulation could give. A goverment lead heath system is attacked greatly in the US by the Republicans but in the UK the NHS is effective enough that even the Conseratives like it. A private heath care system is by logic a ill chosen path.

In the end goverment control is no the evil. The evil is that power is unregulated, for the democratic system is set up to check on political power. It would be needed to commence such notions to avoid abush of power via corperations.

It requires the position that "lack of freedom due to lack of resources needed to do stuff" is an acceptable state of affairs while "lack of freedom because you must compromise your wishes with those of others" is not.