I notice that “simpler/fewer laws” is leading in the poll, and I want to ask the people who picked that a question to make sure they understand it right: would you say that a government with a single rule, “obey all commands from the monarch”, is a “small” government? Because that’s very few and very simple laws; it’s just not a very permissive law. — Pfhorrest

Sure, no that is not small goverment. What i would say is the most important aspect of the idea of small government, is not the amount of laws or complexity necessarily, nor any other poll-options for that matter, but the notion that the power of government to issue laws is restricted to certain clearly defined domains. Typically one would assume this would lead to less laws, but it doesn't have to.

The extreme end example of a small government would be something like Nozick's night watchman state. The thing that defines it, is not the brute amount of laws or finances, but the fact that its powers to govern (to issue laws) is restricted severely.

the notion that the power of government to issue laws is restricted to certain clearly defined domains. — ChatteringMonkey

The thing that defines it, is not the brute amount of laws or finances, but the fact that it's powers to govern (the issue laws) is restricted severely. — ChatteringMonkey

But this is the case with all governments I know of, yet the debate does not seem to be settled. I don't know of any government which has totally unrestricted powers to issue laws. Most are restricted by requiring first a political mandate of some sort, most have constitutions which must be abided by, many have subjected themselves to unified higher authorities such as the UN or the EuCHR.

Totally unrestricted probably not, but surely there are differences in how much governments are restricted. That is what the discussion is or should be about it seems to me, the degree of restrictions.

Here's one example of a difference in restrictions, in communist Russia the economy was owned and steered by the government for a large part. In the US and Western-Europa we've allways had some kind of restrictions on government power in that domain, like freedom of trade, commerce and entrepreneurship.

Rights for citizens, are restrictions on the powers of government.

Indeed. What I've been trying to get at with both @NOS4A2 and @BitconnectCarlos, is that if we're not referencing some objectively justified criteria for what services should not be provided, then we're doing nothing more than exchanging 'wishlists'. If that's the case we already have a system for dealing with competing wishlists in democracy, so there's nothing further to discuss.

If, on the other hand, there's some fundamental aim we're all agreed upon, then it is largely an empirical matter as whether any service supports or frustrates that aim.

So, do you have any criteria that you think might be more universal than just what you personally prefer?

Yes, psychology, sociology and ultimately political sciences are still in their infancies, particularly because they are such politicized issues... but also because it simply is very complex.

But there are no doubt a ton of empirically verifiable insights to be gained from these sciences, like regarding the optimal sizes of organisations, or regarding which things are best decided on what level of government etc etc...

It's tough, because of the whole climate surrounding these issues, but I think i should be possible to come to some empirically grounded conclusions.

To add something very vague to that... We kind of know that total control like in the communist states of old doesn't work, right? And we kind of also know by now that no government at all, or far-reaching deregulation in some sectors, also tends to lead to disasters... so empirically some amount of regulation seems to work better than no regulation or complete regulation.

It's tough, because of the whole climate surrounding these issues, but I think i should be possible to come to some empirically grounded conclusions. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree, in general, but we need also to agree on objectives as no empirical data can tell us what our objectives 'should' be. I fear that, in this, we will end up with so much disagreement as to render any objective data about how to achieve these objectives useless.

Hence I defer to the idea of battling it out politically.

Take housing as an example. If we all agreed that the long-term welfare of our society as a whole was a primary objective, then we could, in theory, consult architects and economists to see if an increase in taxation to pay for the new housing would be sustainable. I'm fairly sure, however, that even if the answer came back as an unequivocal yes, dissent would start with people declaring the tax 'unfair', 'fairness' now having sprung out of nowhere as an objective higher than societal welfare.

empirically some amount of regulation seems to work better than no regulation or complete regulation. — ChatteringMonkey

I'm not even sure we can get there, but I agree it's probably true. Technically, the disasters of excessive state control could have been caused by any number of comorbid features. Those states were hardly tried out during easy times globally. Likewise with no states at all, one would have to look at context to check it wasn't external factors which caused the problems. I don't think we really have a large enough sample size.

That being said, we've got to decide one way or another and I agree the failures we've seen at either extreme are good enough evidence to be going on with, in the absence of any better.

agree, in general, but we need also to agree on objectives as no empirical data can tell us what our objectives 'should' be. I fear that, in this, we will end up with so much disagreement as to render any objective data about how to achieve these objectives useless.

Hence I defer to the idea of battling it out politically. — Isaac

I'm kind of sceptical that this will turn out to be a fruitfull avenue, as so much of battling it out politically ends up being about securing votes, so ultimately about the perception of doing something rather than actually doing that something.

But I think we agree, ultimately people will have different values and objectives, that is typically not something you can figure out scientifically. But so much of the political ideas on how to implement those values and objectives are empirically verifiable, and little effort has gone into figuring those things out. Maybe if we could at least get clear on those, some of the disagreement would go away.

I'm not even sure we can get there, but I agree it's probably true. Technically, the disasters of excessive state control could have been caused by any number of comorbid features. Those states were hardly tried out during easy times globally. Likewise with no states at all, one would have to look at context to check it wasn't external factors which caused the problems. I don't think we really have a large enough sample size.

That being said, we've got to decide one way or another and I agree the failures we've seen at either extreme are good enough evidence to be going on with, in the absence of any better. — Isaac

Yeah sure, and the world changes. Maybe with big data and AI, total governement controle would be more feasible now...

On the plus side, the sample-size can only get bigger :-).

much of battling it out politically ends up being about securing votes, so ultimately about the perception of doing something rather than actually doing that something. — ChatteringMonkey

Yeah, my definition of 'political' is also much broader than just getting votes.

Maybe if we could at least get clear on those, some of the disagreement would go away. — ChatteringMonkey

Yeah, I certainly think it can't hurt, and may just eliminate a little of the disagreement. At least clarify the options. One of the big problems I think is that people can try to support their policies with an excessive coverage of objectives (by which I mean claim their preferred policy meets 'everyone's' aims). If we had greater clarity about methods it would at least cut down on this type of deception. Very few things are panaceas and most sacrifice some objective for another, yet if you read any political manifesto you'd think they'd found the door to Valhalla.

Yeah, I certainly think it can't hurt, and may just eliminate a little of the disagreement. At least clarify the options. One of the big problems I think is that people can try to support their policies with an excessive coverage of objectives (by which I mean claim their preferred policy meets 'everyone's' aims). If we had greater clarity about methods it would at least cut down on this type of deception. Very few things are panaceas and most sacrifice some objective for another, yet if you read any political manifesto you'd think they'd found the door to Valhalla. — Isaac

I agree with everything you said here, though I do wonder how much difference it would make ultimately. Apparently voting for political parties, is much less about what the individual policies are of the political parties on certain issues, but more akin to supporting and identifying with a certain sports team. You choose a side, and usually stick to that side no matter what policies they propose, because its your side. So there's that.

Are there any real world examples of small governments? — Michael

Besides municipal, county, village, & (small) island governing bodies almost by definition, and most Western social democracies (i.e. market socialist welfare states), any network or federation of cooperatives like Mondragon in the Basque region of Spain, etc have "small(er)"  adverse, or unaccountable, impacts on civil society (e.g.) in terms of public cost : public benefit ratios (high) than most  laissez-faire / administrative 'nation states' - certainly in comparison to the United States and other state capitalist paradises like Singapore, Vietnam, China, (Thatcherite) Britain, etc - the public cost : public benefit ratios of which are low(ering) while the public cost : private benefits are skyrocketing (i.e. corporate subsidies (e.g. "neoliberal supply-side" policies) that  shift fiscal burdens on to median income taxpayers, non-luxury consumers & the rest of the precariat).

I'm not twisting anything. You called rights 'wants'. You never mentioned that some had 'reasons' to be included as rights while others didn't. So what are the criteria for something to be a 'right' that you think say, free speech, qualifies for but healthcare (where its available) does not?

I never called rights ”wants”. I called your version of rights “wants”, which I don’t believe to be rights at all.

Human rights are claims against tyranny. Pretend rights like healthcare are not, but are demands for goods and services from the government and other tax-payers.

That sound like “more permissive laws” to me.

I never called rights ”wants”. I called your version of rights “wants”, which I don’t believe to be rights at all. — NOS4A2

What you 'call it' is a pointless waste of time on a philosophy forum, we're not discussing your pet names for things. If you want to establish a difference between your list of 'rights' and my list of 'wants' which has a bearing on which the government should provide, you'll have to do more than just label them.

What criteria are you using to decide which services the government should and should not supply?

What justification are you using for your claim that these criteria are anything more than just your personal 'wants' regarding what you want your government to provide?

Pretend rights like healthcare are not, but are demands for goods and services from the government and other tax-payers. — NOS4A2

Defence of property, protection of free speech and defence from military invasion are all services you demand from the government. Why are your demands different from mine? 'Cause all I'm getting at the moment as a difference is that yours allow people to become self-obsessed sociopaths, whereas mine actually give a shit about other people.

Yes, it does.

I'm trying to figure out why it's not the same in my mind...

I guess that a government that has limited legislative power, a small government, could have very strict laws on the few subjects they are allowed to regulate. So small government doesn't necessarily mean permissive across the board, but it certainly does for the things they are not allowed to regulate, as no regulation is permissive naturally.

Apparently voting for political parties, is much less about what the individual policies are of the political parties on certain issues, but more akin to supporting and identifying with a certain sports team. You choose a side, and usually stick to that side no matter what policies they propose, because its your side. So there's that. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, there's that. It's probably only swing voters who would be affected. But then it's only swing voters that ever matter anyway.

What you 'call it' is a pointless waste of time on a philosophy forum, we're not discussing your pet names for things. If you want to establish a difference between your list of 'rights' and my list of 'wants' which has a bearing on which the government should provide, you'll have to do more than just label them.

What criteria are you using to decide which services the government should and should not supply?

What justification are you using for your claim that these criteria are anything more than just your personal 'wants' regarding what you want your government to provide?

Actually I was showing that you were misrepresenting my arguments, which is a waste of time on a philosophy forum. You claimed I said something which I didn’t. So you’ll have to do a little better than that.

Defence of property, protection of free speech and defence from military invasion are all services you demand from the government. Why are your demands different from mine? 'Cause all I'm getting at the moment as a difference is that yours allow people to become self-obsessed sociopaths, whereas mine actually give a shit about other people.

My claims are different because they aim to protect citizens from tyranny. Yours introduce a sort of tyranny, that one must give up the fruits of his labor for the sake of others.

If you gave a shit about people you wouldn’t delegate your duties to the government. There is nothing stopping you from providing healthcare or housing yourself. So why won’t you? So I doubt that claim that you actually give a shit about others.

My claims are different because they aim to protect citizens from tyranny. Yours introduce a sort of tyranny, that one must give up the fruits of his labor for the sake of others. — NOS4A2

Right. And why (apart from your own personal preference) should government services be limited to protection against tyranny? Why (apart from your own personal preference) should people who share the same country not give up some of the fruits of their labours for the sake of others?

If you gave a shit about people you wouldn’t delegate your duties to the government. There is nothing stopping you from providing healthcare or housing yourself. — NOS4A2

Yes there is. I don't have enough money. I need someone with power to extract money from those who have more than me.

Right. And why (apart from your own personal preference) should government services be limited to protection against tyranny? Why (apart from your own personal preference) should people who share the same country not give up some of the fruits of their labours for the sake of others?

It isn’t a Government service to refuse to engage in tyranny of its citizens. It’s a matter of ethics and good government.

As for the why, human rights have a long history of philosophical and historical justifications for their merits. There is a long list of thinking men and women who argue for free speech, for example. These are long, hard-fought battles, and the existence of rights are the fruits of these battles.

Yes there is. I don't have enough money. I need someone with power to extract money from those who have more than me.

Straight from the horses mouth.

It isn’t a Government service to refuse to engage in tyranny of its citizens. It’s a matter of ethics and good government. — NOS4A2

I'm not talking about the government's tyranny. You said that the government should protect your property, protect your right to free speech and defend you from threats to your freedom. Those are services. Why (apart from your own personal preference) should government services be limited to those.

There is a long list of thinking men and women who argue for free speech, for example. These are long, hard-fought battles, and the existence of rights are the fruits of these battles. — NOS4A2

So, do I take it your answer to the question of how you justify your claims about what services the government should and should not provide is whether a long list of intellectuals agree with it?

There is a long list of thinking men who argue for all the other human rights too, as there are who argue for free healthcare, even full egalitarianism. Are you suggesting there's some sort of consensus among intellectuals about what services the government should provide? I don't think your neo-con liberalism is going to come out well from that criteria.

Yes there is. I don't have enough money. I need someone with power to extract money from those who have more than me.


Straight from the horses mouth. — NOS4A2

And? You asked me why I didn't provide healthcare and housing. Its because I haven't got enough money. If I want others to have healthcare and housing I'll need to get money from others who are richer than me. What point do you think you're making here?

I guess that a government that has limited legislative power, a small government, could have very strict laws on the few subjects they are allowed to regulate. So small government doesn't necessarily mean permissive across the board, but it certainly does for the things they are not allowed to regulate, as no regulation is permissive naturally. — ChatteringMonkey

Yeah, I'm considering limitations on the government part of its laws, so a government that is (by its own laws) limited to only regulating a few things is, by those same laws, necessarily permissive of everything else.

It's probably worth mentioning a bit of technical philosophy here, the Hohfeldian analysis of rights. Hohfeld analyzed "rights" into four kinds, along two axes: an active-passive axis, and a first- or second-order axis. (Neither of these is the same as the positive-negative axis; that's a third thing that Hohfeld's not concerned with, that can be applied to any of these four types of rights).

A first-order active right is a "liberty", which is a permission to do or not-do something.

A first-order passive right is a "claim", which is an obligation on someone else to do or not-do something.

It's worth mentioning again here that these are not the same as positive and negative rights. Usually when people are talking about positive and negative rights, they're talking about positive and negative claims specifically: a positive claim is an obligation on someone else to do something, and a negative claim is obligation on someone else to not do something.

Claims and liberties limit each other though, because obligation and permission are De Morgan duals: an obligation is the lack of permission to not do something, and permission is the lack of an obligation to not do something. So you have liberties to do everything nobody has a claim against, and all of your claims limit others' liberties. (Even, maybe especially, your negative claims: your claim against someone doing something limits their liberty to do that).

A second-order active right is a "power". Second-order means rights regarding rights, so a power is basically the liberty to change who has what rights. Powers are the kinds of rights that governments have, the kind of thing that lets them declare who may or must do or not do such-and-such, who has what permissions and obligations.

A second-order passive right is an "immunity", which is a claim against having one's rights changed. Immunities are the kinds of rights granted by the US Bill of Rights, which do not directly say that anyone is or isn't permitted or obliged to do something, but that the Congress does not have the power to make changes in who is or isn't permitted or obliged to do certain kinds of things. Because like claims and liberties, powers and immunities limit each other: one has powers to do everything that nobody has immunity against, and all of one's immunities limit others' powers.

"More permissive laws" means more liberties, fewer claims. Since permission is the default in absence of any law, more immunities (like ChatteringMonkey is talking about) means less power to change that status quo ante, resulting in fewer claims being granted, and so more liberties remaining.

I suppose after writing all of that out, I realize that my own conception of "smaller government" is "fewer powers" rather than strictly "more liberties", much like ChatteringMonkey here, but for a non-technical poll that doesn't require all this background, I think they're equivalent enough as "More permissive laws".

I'm not talking about the government's tyranny. You said that the government should protect your property, protect your right to free speech and defend you from threats to your freedom. Those are services. Why (apart from your own personal preference) should government services be limited to those.

In that sense that the protect my rights, yes they are a service. I actually don’t agree with any statism, so those aren’t my personal preferences, but as someone who pays taxes towards a government these are the only services I require. These services limit government power while at the same time defending me from those who would take my freedoms away. That’s why I see it as preferable to big government statism.

So, do I take it your answer to the question of how you justify your claims about what services the government should and should not provide is whether a long list of intellectuals agree with it?

There is a long list of thinking men who argue for all the other human rights too, as there are who argue for free healthcare, even full egalitarianism. Are you suggesting there's some sort of consensus among intellectuals about what services the government should provide? I don't think your neo-con liberalism is going to come out well from that criteria.

No, what I mean is it’s about confronting the arguments, not accepting the consensus.

And? You asked me why I didn't provide healthcare and housing. Its because I haven't got enough money. If I want others to have healthcare and housing I'll need to get money from others who are richer than me. What point do you think you're making here?

Should I be allowed to take from you the fruits of your labor and use it as I see fit? Personally I see that as morally wrong just as I would any kind of thievery.

Nothing is stopping you but your own refusal to act. So why not try to care for others instead of demanding others fund and do it for you?

And in another installment of the never ending argument....

Why don't they have a choice in it? Where did I suggest we get slave labour to build houses?

Because rights entail duties. A duty must be fulfilled.

The right to housing or warm water or ventilation or heating entails that there must be someone to do that work, unless you want to add the exception "unless they don't want to."

So which one is it. If you want to add that qualification it's now just a matter of free choice.

There's all sorts of qualifications we can put on rights without abandoning them.

Yeah and we all have a right to a ferrari assuming we can afford one.

You do realize that we have homeless shelters?

No, the topic is 'small government'.

I realize that's the topic of the thread but the topic of our conversation is the nature of rights. We were focusing on housing and sufficient income, but last post you brought up like 8 other different rights that may or may not exist. I'm happy to discuss them individually when I have the time, but we're still sort of on this topic because I feel there's a disconnect.

you cannot simply dismiss these claims on the basis of a simple philosophical position, you're now having to demonstrate that each claim is unsustainable on its own merits.

This is a perfectly valid way to go out it, if you're going to pitch an idea I'm going to try to press you for specifics and when you can't provide those specifics or the details result in undesirable consequences that makes everything worse then maybe, just maybe, you should take that into consideration.

The point is that you've agreed these claims are not denied the status of 'rights' on some categorical philosophical basis.

My go-to argument is concrete examples because it's more straight-forward. I have presented a philosophical distinction between positive and negative rights but you didn't really care. Nonetheless, I'd say that the "duties/slavery" argument that I'm presenting now is a little more abstract in that it's not dealing strictly with implementation.

We agreed that harm to society resulting from satisfying these claims is the only reason to dismiss them. Seeing as the harm to society these claims may cause is still a moot point among experts, that should be the end of it.

When you place the material well-being of society above fairness or free choice you will fail.

No, what I mean is it’s about confronting the arguments, not accepting the consensus. — NOS4A2

But you haven't provided any arguments whatsoever. All you've done is said things you prefer. You prefer states to only "limit government power while at the same time defending me from those who would take my freedoms away." and you dislike those that provide other services. All Along you're hinting at it being about more than just your personal preferences but you haven't said in what way.

Should I be allowed to take from you the fruits of your labor and use it as I see fit? Personally I see that as morally wrong just as I would any kind of thievery. — NOS4A2

Who said anything about "as you see fit"? I was talking about taking excess to meet people's basic needs. Yes, you should be allowed to take excessive wealth from me to give it to others who do not yet have their basic needs met. I see it as morally wrong to allow some people to suffer while others have more than they need.

Nothing is stopping you but your own refusal to act. So why not try to care for others instead of demanding others fund and do it for you? — NOS4A2

I am. I support governments who take money from those that have spare and give it to those in need. Why is demanding money from those who have spare not caring?

Why don't they have a choice in it? Where did I suggest we get slave labour to build houses?


Because rights entail duties. A duty must be fulfilled. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, but there's no shortage of housing which means presumably there's no shortage of people who've chosen to build houses of their own free will. If suddenly no one wants to build houses then we might all have to muck in, but so far there's no evidence that this might be a problem, so why even raise the issue?

You do realize that we have homeless shelters? — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not talking about shelters, I'm talking about housing (and jobs, and decent wages and healthcare etc).

This is a perfectly valid way to go out it, if you're going to pitch an idea I'm going to try to press you for specifics and when you can't provide those specifics or the details result in undesirable consequences that makes everything worse then maybe, just maybe, you should take that into consideration. — BitconnectCarlos

No. That doesn't make any sense at all. You're not an expert on these matters, neither am I. So it's absolutely pointless us trying to work out if there are undesirable consequences, or if they outweigh the desirable ones. This work has already been done by people with far more knowledge on the subject than either of us, why on earth would we try to repeat it? The result is - we don't really know for sure. Some experts say that long-term harms will arise, some say they won't. Our job as citizens is not to bash out the evidence (we don't have all the data) it's to decide what to do in the face of the uncertainty. Which experts do we trust? What position do we take when we can't be sure of the consequences? Those are the questions we're qualified to answer.

I have presented a philosophical distinction between positive and negative rights but you didn't really care. — BitconnectCarlos

And why would I? All you've presented is the distinction. No argument at all about why that distinction matters.

When you place the material well-being of society above fairness or free choice you will fail. — BitconnectCarlos

But this is just idle speculation (not to mention a very idiosyncratic definition of 'fairness'). You have no evidence that it will fail, so why presume so?

But you haven't provided any arguments whatsoever. All you've done is said things you prefer. You prefer states to only "limit government power while at the same time defending me from those who would take my freedoms away." and you dislike those that provide other services. All Along you're hinting at it being about more than just your personal preferences but you haven't said in what way.

I’m not going to type out all the arguments for you. If you’re curious they can be easily found.

Who said anything about "as you see fit"? I was talking about taking excess to meet people's basic needs. Yes, you should be allowed to take excessive wealth from me to give it to others who do not yet have their basic needs met. I see it as morally wrong to allow some people to suffer while others have more than they need.

The “taking” aspect is the problem. You can do whatever you want with your own excess. You cannot do anything you want with mine.

I am. I support governments who take money from those that have spare and give it to those in need. Why is demanding money from those who have spare not caring?

Because caring involves taking care of the needs of others. Demanding others to care for others is not the same.