The Error of the "Minimum Government"

Some reactionaries, specially in the US (but not only), like to dream and talk about a minimum, cheap, almost simplistic form of government.

They argue that in a nation without immigrants or racially homogenous,society would run smootly, poverty would be almost non-existance, and progress would be striking.

Rings a bell? No? Try to take out the "racial" component.

Oh yes. Anarchy you say, and quite right. These sort of people are the ever so less rare "anarcho-capitalists".

Sure they will try to deny it, reject the label, repudiate the people who denounce his agenda, but that is what he is technically.

Now, that per se, is not a big problem. What is a big problem however, is the dangerous irony of the situation. Akin to certain "communist" countries that existed, such "voluntary" deregulation would result in such disparities in living standards, that what this "minimum" government would basically do all the time would be protecting individuals against society in general, regardless of how badly their actions affect the whole. Think about it as "communism upside down".

This stagering contradiction can only make any sense when there is another group to blame, such as other races or immigrants, but as soon as this racial objetive of an homogenous society would be achieved, it would crumble under itself, and the working people who followed it in the hope that their problems would disappear would see themselve in a new cruel reality where they see all their rights taken away, and worse, there would be no one to blame for the state of affairs this time.

Of course, dare they to complain about their racial brothers, be them as opressive as they can be, the working man would be considered a "traitor" and demonized just like the other groups were, possibly called a commie, or a liberal.

The people empower anyone they so desire,but it is utmost important for the people to always question what will be there for them, and not just take fancy words as facts.

You're quite right, Leon.

Reactionaries of this sort love to play off of people's resentment towards minorities benefiting from the social safety nets established in our countries, in order to sucker them into supporting their laissez-faire proposals. Of course, as self-described nationalists, they are supposed to be aspiring to establish homogeneous orders—therefore, the preconditions for such objections would be abolished.

So when engaging these minarchists, I would strongly recommend underscoring that basic point, as well as emphasizing the fact that, if their principles were ever to be applied in society, it would condemn the majority of fellow nationals to a fate comparable to that of working class during the Gilded Age.

There is a certain appeal to the idea of being free from government and all that; however the ideal and the reality are two different things.

I am all for trimming government and making its dealings more open and transparent, in fact much could be saved by consolidating functions and eliminating duplicate functions that are inherently wasteful.

And then there is the fact that lawyers HAVE no clue what the regulations they write up actually do or are for; we need MORE sane, less legalistic regulations that are easily understood and have NO exemptions for anyone large or small.

This being said, I cannot see why one would need to start with the very programs that help the working class by and large and not the massive corporate welfare programs legislated by means of lobbying.

Let's get priorities right if there is a need to cut, let us also cut into the benefits for the wealthy and there are many, like say the profits of the war party and the tax cuts for the wealthiest few since of say Ronald Regan.

In America war is big business. There are trillions in contracts, deals, and subsidies to be had IF you have to correct connections. This system the so called MIC needs dismantled and the major players nationalized as a transitional step to ending their role in domestic and internatioal geo-politics. The manufacturing base could be retooled to produce other products and put people to work. We do not need all the weapons we produce right now, we could get by on maybe half this amount and STILL be the most armed nation on Earth, if we ditch the bankers and corporations empire overseas and concentrate upon ourselves and back others that do the same else where.

These corporations are the children of the same banks that rule Wall Street and operate the FED as a legally sanctioned tribute collection operation; so of course if you are going to take down the kids mom and dad bank need to go as well. And while you are at that you might as well take the final step and repudiate ALL debts alleged to be owed and dare anyone to attack a nuclear power to collect.

Then lets figure out what we have to spend upon what, domestically.

To put it briefly, these libertarian free-market bozos don't understand -- maybe congenitally can't understand -- that the modern state and modern capitalism co-evolved. Capital needs the state -- and it knows it. For purposes of demagoguery -- and to cut back what little the state does for ordinary people -- capitalists may decry "big government" -- but this doesn't extend to cutting the military budget or the various forms in which the state props up or subsidises capital -- for example, the infrastructure, enforcing legal contracts abroad and domestically, providing orders for all sorts of goods, subsidising or providing research, and so on.

Minimizing to make way for what?

That's the important question.

Freedom, liberty, justice...all these things are relative.

There's a dogma from classical liberalism that infers that government hinders profit. HOWEVER, there is nothing inherently anti-government about capitalism. It's just a dogma adopted by profit-morality.

It's easy to say government is bad when people are submissive to its laws. Drop some blood in the water and their opinion will change. When you have an uprising on your hands, 'hands off' ethic go out the window.

So as you can see, it's never about the size of government, it's the thing that government facilitates which interests capitalists.

For us, the definition of government is totally different. So much in fact that I think it deserves its own term, like a people's executive.