So, how about that “small government,” huh? Although I suppose everyone surely agrees government ought be no bigger than it should, one does hear a lot about the ideal of “small government,” defined in various way. One way is with metrics like revenue or expenditure, manpower, office space, etc. Metrics linked to physical presence. Another way is in terms of function rather than physical presence, as proposed by people who believe government has no business worrying about market failure, distributional issues, the poor, the sick, education, infrastructure, pretty much anything beyond police, prisons, maybe the military, sometimes not even that. And you know how interested I can get in language, especially when some word or phrase looks ready to head in two directions at once. Not hard to figure out where that’s going, but let’s spell it out anyway, shall we?
Yes, talking about “small government” by function in an economic context is particularly fertile ground for certain sorts of confusion. That’s because setting the conditions for peaceful resolution of interpersonal conflicts is a necessary function of government and, indeed, what distinguishes civil society from anarchy, at least of the real, observable sort as opposed to the fantastical sort dreamers and young people seem prone to imagine.
One may propose such resolution can handled by a one time, infallible, eternal, clockwork system of laws relating to economic power and markets, as opposed to a system allowing continuous revisions, reassessments, refinements, corrections. But the function remains the same.
One may propose fewer resources be spent on that function, that we should defund the police, disband prisons, eliminate government programs designed to address perceive economic problems, etc. But the function remains the same.
One may propose we reduce government by shutting down voting, clearing out legislatures, sending democratic politicians packing. But the function remains the same.
When one thinks in terms of function, one realizes “small government” in an economic context doesn’t really mean reducing government involvement in society, it means favoring one form or expression of government involvement or power over another, one resolution of interpersonal conflicts of preferences, needs, desires over another. Confusion on this point is the primary link between “libertarianism” and fascism. Some people concerned about state power oppose “activist” democratic government, but then see government as necessary for property and markets and the orderly wielding of economic power to resolve interpersonal conflict and thus support “small,” non-democratic, authoritarian government, i.e., fascism.
Of course, there may be perfectly sensible reasons to support eliminating democratic government. One may believe, as a matter of ethics, our method of distributing economic power is ethically correct, market failures are rare or insignificant, and resolving interpersonal conflicts using economic power in markets leads always to ethically optimal results. In that case, one may oppose democratic government because of the ever present possibility voters may choose to “interfere” with what supposes the ethically correct situation, the natural optimality one may associate with the unimpeded expression of economic power in real markets. But the idea one is opposed to government involvement or the expression of government power in economic life is not one of those sensible reasons. Government, and government power, is still very much there and indeed omnipresent, enforcing legal property arrangements, contracts, market institutions, etc.
Interested in “small government?” Fine with me. Just take some care about the sense of “small government” one has in mind, the ethical positions on economic, political, and social issues one is endorsing, or one might end up that most comical of contemporary figures, the fascist clown. What’s a fascist clown? Well, for me, it’s someone who frets a blue streak about unassailable government power then does a backward pratfall into fascism, never comprehending what he or she has done. It’s funny. One sees a lot of it in bad economics. Always good for a laugh. And, by the way, history suggests fascist governments, once freed from the constraints of public opinion and democratic constraints, can do the darnedest things. Rather like writing someone a blank check, isn’t it? Just hoping it all works out? Having faith? Or doing a bit?
