Jump to content

How exactly do you make the state “smaller”?


Recommended Posts

I read two articles that got me thinking. The first one was about Social Services taking a 5-year old child away from abusive parents, the second was about how the UK Conservatives are becoming more like the US Republican party in arguing for a “smaller” state.

 

Logic dictates that to make the state smaller you would need to get rid of parts of it, so which exact parts of it are proponents of a smaller state proposing to cut? Presumably not Social Services?

 

Anyone who believes in a smaller state or has any interest in this topic, I’d respectfully love to hear specifics.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Iam9man said:

Presumably not Social Services?

Aren't social services exactly what many people who argue for a smaller state want cut?

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Iam9man said:

I read two articles that got me thinking. The first one was about Social Services taking a 5-year old child away from abusive parents, the second was about how the UK Conservatives are becoming more like the US Republican party in arguing for a “smaller” state.

 

Logic dictates that to make the state smaller you would need to get rid of parts of it, so which exact parts of it are proponents of a smaller state proposing to cut? Presumably not Social Services?

 

Anyone who believes in a smaller state or has any interest in this topic, I’d respectfully love to hear specifics.

I mean, we all know the US conservatives absolutely do mean social services, right? It can't be more clear than in the criticism "Nanny State" -- just like deregulating economic practices will lead to the Free Market making everything work out naturally for the better, getting the government "out of the family" will make families stronger; the government can't do anything right; learned dependence, yadda yadda.

 

So yeah, don't know what UK conservatives mean by smaller state, but over here, it means sympathy is for suckers.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Tories literally want to slice parts of the UK off (like Scotland and Liverpool) and hope they just float away. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lysandre, the Star-Crossed
1 hour ago, Iam9man said:

I read two articles that got me thinking. The first one was about Social Services taking a 5-year old child away from abusive parents, the second was about how the UK Conservatives are becoming more like the US Republican party in arguing for a “smaller” state.

 

Logic dictates that to make the state smaller you would need to get rid of parts of it, so which exact parts of it are proponents of a smaller state proposing to cut? Presumably not Social Services?

 

Anyone who believes in a smaller state or has any interest in this topic, I’d respectfully love to hear specifics.

You'd cut back state involvement partially or entirely in certain matters. For example, many support abolishing certain government agencies or deregulation of certain issues. Two good examples are the war on drugs and the social safety net programs. Republicans want the latter to end or be cut back, Libertarians generally want both ended. The EPA, the ATF, the FDA, the DEA...these are examples of agencies some of us want to see closed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ceebs said:

Are social services exactly what many people who argue for a smaller state want cut?

Haha - fair point! I was using Social Services in a British sense, which tends to be used only for the department which looks out for the welfare of children. I guess technically “social services” encompasses all services provided by the state for the welfare of the people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RoseGoesToYale

When US conservatives talk about smaller government, they usually mean one thing: tax cuts. Republicans HATE taxes, which is fair, because the US for a long-ass time has not known how to use tax money in a non-corrupt way, and the vast majority of tax payers never see that money come back to them in any meaningful way (whereas in a function government, tax money works like an investment where the government gives you usable goods and services back for it), so they vote Republican so they don't have to pay so many taxes.

 

When the state takes in fewer taxes, instead cutting out whole departments/services, EVERYTHING shrinks... all departments have less money to work with, so in turn they'll lose employees and won't be able to give as many goods and services back to taxpayers, or the quality of the goods/services will be shitty. Healthcare, education, transportation, roads, greenspaces, and help for the homeless or hungry falls by the wayside, as the government has to pick and choose where the bulk of the now smaller amount of tax money is going to go, and it typically goes toward money stuff and military stuff.

 

The losers in this scenario are the people who voted Republican. Look at the red states in the US... they barely have public transit, their roads are crumbling underneath their cars, their schools have some of the worst educational outcomes maybe in the whole high-GDP world, and their economies are very weak, especially the more rural you get. States with strong economies, e.g. California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, or Washington tend to be blue states that pay higher taxes. Republicans trick their voters by only making them see the short-term benefit of paying fewer taxes and not the massive benefit reworking how tax money is used would have, which Republican politicians won't ever do because that requires work and it's much easier just to sit back and do nothing while still making a beefy salary.

 

(*This is only an economic explanation of American conservatism, then there're the voters who vote Republican purely for social policy reasons... quite a few economically conservative Americans vote Democrat because the Republican's social policies are just so fascist.)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rebis said:

mean, we all know the US conservatives absolutely do mean social services, right? It can't be more clear than in the criticism "Nanny State" -- just like deregulating economic practices will lead to the Free Market making everything work out naturally for the better, getting the government "out of the family" will make families stronger; the government can't do anything right; learned dependence, yadda yadda.

Yeah, this. Would they ever go as far as not wanting the “Nanny State” to remove children from physically abusive parents though?

 

Or another example, from a European perspective, not wanting universal healthcare seems highly strange; like why? But I genuinely don’t know where small state supporters draw the line. I’m guessing (unless they’re genuine anarchist?) they still support a fire service, schools, etc?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

The EPA, the ATF, the FDA, the DEA...these are examples of agencies some of us want to see closed.

If you’re comfortable sharing, would you mind elaborating briefly why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

EVERYTHING shrinks...

Everything except the armed forces?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Iam9man said:

Haha - fair point! I was using Social Services in a British sense, which tends to be used only for the department which looks out for the welfare of children. I guess technically “social services” encompasses all services provided by the state for the welfare of the people.

Oh ok. Here in Canada (or Ontario at least, I dunno what it is in other provinces), I think the whole thing is called the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services.

 

I mean, some people want to cut that stuff here for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RoseGoesToYale
40 minutes ago, Iam9man said:

Everything except the armed forces?

Well, yeah, because yay for xenophobia, nationalism and military-industrial complex.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Iam9man said:

I was using Social Services in a British sense, which tends to be used only for the department which looks out for the welfare of children.

As someone whose parents had CPS (basically the equivalent of that where I live) called on them twice when I was growing up, I’ve had my grievances that that kind of thing from a young age. Being “taken away” was a fear I had growing up. People don’t seem to understand how traumatizing it can be for kids to be forcibly taken from their parents, and I’ve seen people say “Those kids should be taken away from their parents” for every little reason you could think of. It should only be used if the kid really is in danger.
 

One time when CPS was called on my parents, it was when my mom was working at night and sleeping during the day while my dad was at work. I was 5 and my sister was 1. We were pretty much left to our own devices while our mom was asleep. Well one day my sister ended up wandering to the end of the street we lived on, and the family that lived down there saw her and called CPS. We ended up not being taken away, but I still remember being scared that we would be. Do I think it was dumb of my parents to leave my 1 year old sister and 5 year old me unsupervised for hours during the day? Yeah. Do I think my sister and I should have been put in foster care over that? Hell no.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Iam9man said:

Yeah, this. Would they ever go as far as not wanting the “Nanny State” to remove children from physically abusive parents though?

 

Or another example, from a European perspective, not wanting universal healthcare seems highly strange; like why? But I genuinely don’t know where small state supporters draw the line. I’m guessing (unless they’re genuine anarchist?) they still support a fire service, schools, etc?

I'm sure if you give the specific example, everybody will support helping kids who are being abused. The problem is that the systemic, institutional structure necessary to recognize and help kids who are physically abused can't exist, in any functional way, where the one specific circumstance is the only responsibility and activity.

 

Honestly, the inescapable reality is that effective social services really are just going to be a financial sinkhole. There is no getting around it; there will never be a way to make taking care of the most powerless and vulnerable of society a profitable venture. And it's easy to make it seem like "wasteful government spending" because what exactly are all these well-paid social workers , teachers, and government workers with their unions and fat pensions and all that really doing?

 

"Making your world a better place to live, asshat." One might say.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Invisible Pumpkin

I have no idea, but I like the idea to an extent.  in some countries we would be better off without them, or at least won't make much difference, they can't cut any more hospital attention, they can't cut any more basic services, the programs, attention etc, is so low, poor, bad, that at this point it doesn't make sense to pay for having a state/people to repress citizens. 

Edited by Invisible Pumpkin
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, awadama said:

I think the Tories literally want to slice parts of the UK off (like Scotland and Liverpool) and hope they just float away. 

Believe me, some of here in the States on BOTH sides of the aisle would love for that to happen to a few of our states.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Iam9man said:

Everything except the armed forces?

That, and any agency authorized to harass, spy on, and rob ordinary Americans.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The new canadian conservative leader wants to reduce government in various ways.  He wants to defund the CBC. Instead of handing out money to build and manage government housing, he wants to hand out 1-time grants to build housing in Toronto  and Vancouver. He wants to simplify the tax system; currently, a single mother would be taxed and be given child benefits later currently. Sadly, he doesn't want to reduce the military and the intelligence agency.

Education, healthcare and welfare is provincial juridiction. Because healthcare is already in a pityful state in my province, when they're talking about reducing government, it translates to cuts in education. Welfare is seldom touched which means that though they rarely get cuts, inflation eats away the income people on welfare come.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gloomy said:

As someone whose parents had CPS (basically the equivalent of that where I live) called on them twice when I was growing up, I’ve had my grievances that that kind of thing from a young age. Being “taken away” was a fear I had growing up. People don’t seem to understand how traumatizing it can be for kids to be forcibly taken from their parents, and I’ve seen people say “Those kids should be taken away from their parents” for every little reason you could think of. It should only be used if the kid really is in danger.
 

One time when CPS was called on my parents, it was when my mom was working at night and sleeping during the day while my dad was at work. I was 5 and my sister was 1. We were pretty much left to our own devices while our mom was asleep. Well one day my sister ended up wandering to the end of the street we lived on, and the family that lived down there saw her and called CPS. We ended up not being taken away, but I still remember being scared that we would be. Do I think it was dumb of my parents to leave my 1 year old sister and 5 year old me unsupervised for hours during the day? Yeah. Do I think my sister and I should have been put in foster care over that? Hell no.

I mean, I can't speak for everybody obviously, but as someone who has worked at a shelter for kids who have been removed by from their homes by CPS, I can tell you that I am aware of how traumatizing the whole thing is. I think many in the system are, including the many (if not most) of the social workers who have to make the call of whether or not to remove kids from their home.

 

Consider, I live in a pretty liberal state with one of the better social service systems in the country, yet everybody in social services is aware of how all of the systems are overtaxed. Our shelter was, foster placement was, other placements were. So even from a financial/resources standpoint, it's not as if it makes any sense to go about removing kids willy nilly. For that matter, we are unfortunately well aware of the reality that all efforts expended thus far have failed to eliminate abuse in the foster system itself; we have kids removed from foster placements and adoptive homes for confirmed abuse, as well.

 

So as scary as it was from your perspective, honestly it sounds like the system worked as it should have, in your case. A one year old unsupervised in the street really is reason enough to have CPS look into possible neglect. Thankfully your investigating social workers apparently understood that it was only a case of your parents' limited resources being stretched really thin, and that it would have been worse for all involved to take you from the home.

 

There are kids who go through some really horrible things, though. And by all accounts, including from the kids themselves that I have worked with ... flawed as the system is, it can help. It does, sometimes.

 

Social services needs WAY more money, though. Across the board. I've been at it 14 years, and have to say the social problems have continued kicking our collective asses the whole time, no matter how hard we work or how much we care.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Howard said:

Sadly, he doesn't want to reduce the military and the intelligence agency.

In all fairness, our military is, if perhaps a bit larger than a postage stamp, still not all that big or massively funded.  And it's already been downsized over the years—I live in fairly close proximity to an air force base that has no aircraft.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lysandre, the Star-Crossed
16 hours ago, Iam9man said:

If you’re comfortable sharing, would you mind elaborating briefly why?

Quote

The EPA, the ATF, the FDA, the DEA...these are examples of agencies some of us want to see closed.

Going agency by agency down this list...

 

I can't speak personally to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), but usually folks oppose it on economic grounds. I'm a bit more environmentally aware than some and believe in pushing the market in certain directions, so we'll circle back to this when I get to the FDA.

 

The ATF (or more accurately now called the BATFE, because they eventually gave them jurisdiction over explosives as well as alcohol, tobacco, and firearms) is one I oppose deeply on multiple levels as does most of the American Right, some of our Left, and virtually all of our Libertarian and Anarchist leaning fringe. The ATF by it's very nature is an affront to the core human rights of bodily autonomy and property, pushing and enforcing arbitrary and unjust laws in the name of...can you guess it?

 

I'll give you a hint, it's not health or safety. It's money and racism. Almost all gun laws in this country have racist origins, from the Mulford Act of the Reagan Era to very earliest recorded gun control laws enacted on our soil. What was that early law you may ask? A decree explicitly prohibiting black people from possessing firearms. Almost all of the laws are greed-driven as well, which should come as no surprise when you realize it originated as a branch of the Treasury department. Almost anything they regulate is not truly illegal, it's just a felony tax violation to do it without bribing Uncle Sam for his blessing.

 

The FDA (Food and Drug Administration, I'm writing these out for our non-American comrades) is likewise a bodily autonomy issue, a form of gross overreach of power by the government. People should be free to eat what they wish to eat and consume medications they wish to consume, any issues with quality or safety should be handled by the courts through fraud trials or consumers directly boycotts and other market-based methods. There's no reason people can't take care of themselves. We keep them around for "safety" reasons, allegedly. However I find it hard to believe this isn't also about freedom (and potentially once again at times about racism) when the same agency is exacerbating the infant formula shortages (which disproportionately impacts certain groups) and does other ridiculous things like banning Kinder eggs, but somehow can't stop the myriad of ridiculous products that sell across the country clearly branded "not approved by the FDA". What do we actually fund these people for?

 

The Drug Enforcement Agency...well, once again it goes back to bodily autonomy and racism. There's no good reason anybody should be in jail for smoking the electric lettuce or snorting a little booger sugar, and no reason at all that we should target the users of variant forms of drugs that the government flooded black and brown communities with harder. What I drink, smoke, snort, jab, or rectally administer into my body is my own damn business, not the governments. Unless I'm trying to drive intoxicated, becoming violent, or stealing to pay for my habit it's a non-issue.

 

I can go on, but I stuck to the agencies I listed before.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2022 at 3:17 PM, Iam9man said:

But I genuinely don’t know where small state supporters draw the line. I’m guessing (unless they’re genuine anarchist?) they still support a fire service, schools, etc?

It sounds to me like you're trying to understand the difference between Minarchists and Anarcho-Capitalists; the latter which you describe as "genuine anarchists" which they are not.

 

Anarchists oppose ALL forms of hierarchy, domination and coercive authority. That includes both capitalism AND the state (along with several others; but there's little chance of getting rid of them if you don't get rid of those two first.)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lysandre, the Star-Crossed
8 minutes ago, GaggedNoMore said:

It sounds to me like you're trying to understand the difference between Minarchists and Anarcho-Capitalists; the latter which you describe as "genuine anarchists" which they are not.

Thank you for pointing that out, most people don't get that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2022 at 5:09 PM, GaggedNoMore said:

Anarchists oppose ALL forms of hierarchy, domination and coercive authority. That includes both capitalism AND the state (along with several others; but there's little chance of getting rid of them if you don't get rid of those two first.)

What most people don't understand about why the world has never had a single anarchist country (a modern industrialized one, anyway) is that the answer is to be found in psychology, not politics. You can search politics for the rest of your life and never quite get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lysandre, the Star-Crossed
5 hours ago, SorryNotSorry said:

What most people don't understand about why the world has never had a single anarchist country (a modern industrialized one, anyway) is that the answer is to be found in psychology, not politics. You can search politics for the rest of your life and never quite get it.

Some people are born to lead, some are born to follow, and some are born to be independent. 

Edited by Lysandre, the Star-Crossed
Accidentally copy pasted part of a separate post into this
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...