Why I Dislike Big Government

Now I am sure that there are many Liberals and Democratic Socialists on this site. Off course you all know I am one of the few Conservatives on here. I am sure most of you Liberals and Democratic Socialists support massive social programs that need a lot of money to fund them.

According to British scholar and Socialist Alec Nove, "A society may be seen to be a socialist one if the major part of the means of production of goods and services are not in private hands, but are in some sense socially owned and operated by state, socialized, or cooperative enterprises." He is referring to Democratic Socialism. This is a joint between Liberalism and Socialism. It is basically a government that has a joint of Socialist and Democratic ideals. Thus we get Democratic Socialism (and I am not doing full on Socialism because I think the USA is hopefully far from that). Liberalism and Democratic Socialism largely support big government and I am going to address why there ideas are wrong:

Here are three reasons why I dislike big government:

It Costs A lot of Money!

First of all, big government results in large controlling of government that eliminates the role of individuals. It sees that government as the entirely powerful and thus it has the ability to redistributing the products of labor from the people as it sees fit, usually through high taxation to feed its large social welfare programs.

You see, the supporters of big government believe that all the problems of society can be fixed by government programs. Government programs off course need the tax dollars to survive. They also largely regulate businesses because they believe having more control will stop bad things from happening in the economy.

The problem is that this is not necessarily true. A larger government needs more taxes which causes less wealth for the people causing you to need those social programs. So instead of one forward direction you are stuck in a cycle. You pay your taxes, you get poorer, you are forced to get assistance from the government and it never ends. Economic recessions are usually natural to, mostly with luxury goods. Unlike bottles of water, which will forever be in large demand, a luxury item is like a computer. No one really needs computer to tell you the truth and you don't need many. So when many people have computers and there is no longer a vast demand, the market reacts. Other ways for a recession to start would be in loans and credit. Government also causes a problem itself. If they tax too much on the businesses then chances are it will have a negative effect. Some regulations can be good, but a large an unneeded amount can also have a negative effect.

In some cases, a form of softer Socialism can be worst in the long-run because it can also lead to high taxes and skyrocketing debt. Kind of like the United States since the Great Depression of the 1930s don't you think? That is believed by an Austrian economist named F.A. Hayek.

False Compassion

Now for the second reason why it is bad. Big government is largely based on false compassion which causes some serious consequences even if they are not intended. There are 2 reasons why big government can be accused of this. The first is that it takes away the compassion and goodwill of individuals by taxing them and then having cold bureaucracy do it, sometimes being very inefficient and wasteful. The individual who payed the taxes has no source to where there money went if it was a good cause or not. If you donate money to a charity for poor people then you probably feel good about. For all you know let's say part of your taxes payed for chocolate bar for a lazy worker in one of the government's social programs.

The second problem is that instead of a result of goodwill and gratitude like donating to a charity. Giving money for the government to do it for you can create a sense of resentment to those who are not taxed because on occasion you get the person who may ask, "What and why I am paying for such things?" and more people usually ask that in a larger government where there may be more waste. Thus you get the possibility of more protesters because they are unhappy with the government. The people on the other side who are receiving that welfare check may get greedy and want more to. I am not saying abandon social programs all together, as an efficient and smaller one does help, but why can't the people do it by themselves? Aren't charities set up by individual people. False compassion is largely a Liberal and Democratic Socialist obsession with what they see as equality and fairness accompanied by the conviction of people who may have other ideas.

Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist, found that the supporters of big government see wealth and income as an injustice even if you work hard. He was against this and it is rather common sense to understand than equality is rather impossible even if Socialists believed it. Don't tell that to the Socialist leaders who may live in fabulous mansions. Look at the failed Soviet Union, North Korea, and China as examples. The way of life in these three nations is/was not exactly perfect and equal for everyone.

Big Government Offers Empty Hope

Big government is a fantasy that has never succeeded in practice which has resulted in terrible human suffering. Those who have enacted large and expensive policies in the United States of America have either no real knowledge of what they are doing and have not considered its full effects or just love their ideology too much that they just don't care. As Ludwig von Mises wrote, politicians who support big government policies to improve the market or promote freedom are "either hypocrites who want to bring about Socialism by deceiving the people about their real intentions, or they are ignoramuses who do not know what they are talking about."

As Before Full On Socialism here is a Brief History:
Soviet Union: 1922-1991 or less than a century if that helps.
China: In 1978 China's Deng Xiaoping announced a "second revolution" to Socialism but many of these changes look more capitalistic.
France: France's Socialist Party took power in 1981 with the intentions of creating more social programs, the economy then went into chaos that they went into a reversal.
Tanzania: Tanzania's Julius Nyerere, a Socialist, confessed, "If I call back the British to look at their old plantations, they will laugh at us because we ruined them."

As for France's new Socialist and Greece's choice to Socialism; have fun with that!

Stopped giving a fuck at socialists loving social welfare programs supported by taxation. Stop trying to project the motives of your ideology's modern day opponents onto irrelevant radicals.

I like how none of your examples are socialist.

"Why I don't give a fuck"

Nice satire there!

I might derail this small topic, but what's ur definition of conservatism?

Damn it Pedro, stop being all calm and nice'n shit.

But I am more of an American neoconservative, not a German old one.

http://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/history/v/when-capitalism-is-great-and-not-so-great

http://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/history/v/communism

http://www.khanacademy.org/humaniti...apitalism-and-regulation-in-the-united-states

Those are some interesting videos on Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, etc.

Ah define what form of socialism? because from what I'm seeing your generalizing state socialism with the entire ideology itself.

Are you sure that the definition I found this Alec Nove is entirely incorrect, or could it just be a form of socialism, more of a softer one?

That was the most irrelevant post in this thread.

Again, i ask what is definition of conservatism. Is is this-
a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
from Merriam Webster online

I guess that sounds like me in a sense, but that is not the important thing. There is a threat called Socialism!

Agreed, it was terrible that was posted.

I think he would be the person that would agree with you...

Some arguments between Capitalism and Socialism:

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Capitalism_vs_socialism

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Capitalism_vs_Socialism

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v1n3/thompson.html

Well Socialism is kind of like poison in a sense that it can kill you.