Big Little Government?

Critical Mass

When the U.S. was formed, we had roughly 1 representative in the Federal Government for every 30,000 people. As of 2003, we were at over 660,000 per representative. It's hard enough to come up with a set of ideas that would truly represent 30,000 people - but the notion of trying to do it for two thirds of a million people is insane. Sure, we could add more representatives, but if our goal was even to get it down to 100,000 people per rep (over 3 times the original amount), the Congress would consist of over 3100 people. That would never work.

Celebration of Diversity

In the United States, we take pride in how diverse we are as a people. Yet, more and more, when there are problems in our communities, we turn to the federal government for help. School budgets are vastly funded by Washington. Then we have welfare, housing programs, and on and on and on.

The problem here is that in a country that is so diverse, one umbrella federal solution can't possibly help a substantial portion of the country. The only way that could happen is if everyone was exactly the same and lived in exactly the same conditions and climates. That's not who we are, though. We're all different, with different heritage, different religions, different hobbies and lifestyles - one size can never fit all.

Big Local Government?

There's a lot of talk (especially on the Libertarian front) about shrinking the size of government. What most people don't seem to understand is that the talk is really more about shrinking the size of the Federal Government. Washington is there to manage the things that DO affect us ALL. When these crazy and costly programs are created, they are created with good intentions, but they aren't efficient at all. Most of the people who receive things from these programs are not getting the things they actually need, so they need a lot more of it to make due. What they really need is something else.

That is where the whole chain of command thing comes in. Each state has unique needs. Connecticut doesn't have to worry very much about border control. Canton, Connecticut doesn't have to worry too much about homeless people, but we pay our taxes to the federal government so they can give that money to the poor in some program.

Wouldn't it make more sense to give that portion of your tax dollar to Hartford County (or even Canton itself) so that it could assess the situation and come up with a solution that meets the needs of our own specific situation? I don't know what the solution is, per se. Maybe it's a program to make it easier for local businesses here in Canton to hire out-of-work people. My guess would be that the main reason that it's difficult to hire these people is because they can't get to the job. So, rather than giving them a few thousand dollars every month and not really doing anything to help them get a job, maybe we give them a car lease that is free for six months and, as long as they keep their job, they can use it. At the end of six months, they have a job and the option of picking up the lease payments, or just getting rid of it and buying a car of their own.

In New York city, a solution like this doesn't make a lot of sense. That's not the problem. People can get anywhere in the city with ease. Here in Connecticut (especially out here north and west of Hartford), it seems to me that transportation is at least one of the driving issues. I know that when I was out of work back in the early 1990's, it was my lack of a car that limited my prospects by making me look only for work directly on a bus line or within walking distance to my house.

The Federal Government will never be efficient at any of this stuff. It's impractical - be it the unemployment situation, healthcare, or whatever. As your work your way down the Government Chain, though... you find the sweet spot, the place where one solution WILL actually benefit a substantial number of people. It will cost less, because people are getting what they need, rather than something that might help a symptom, but not really kill the disease.

The Final Rung in The Government Chain

There's one thing I didn't mention here, yet. I talked about Federal, State, County, and Town governments, but there is one more rung below that. That final rung is you.

Freedom comes with responsibility. One of the main responsibilities is to take care of those around you. For sure, it's your family, but sometimes we forget that it's also about making sure our neighbors are okay. If we all did that, then many of these broken government programs wouldn't even be needed.

If the head of the family across the street gets laid off, have them over for dinner a few nights a week, or send them your leftovers, or just buy a bag of staple food to help take the sting out of it all. Fire up your Facebook network and see if any of your friends know of anyone looking for someone who does what your neighbor does for work. You don't need to do much, and you don't need to take on the total burden for them, but if everyone around these people thought like this, then the family would be out of work and eating everyone's leftovers for a week and they'd be back in business before the next mortgage payment or rent check is due.

Trickle Down Government = Bad

Now, hopefully, you have an idea of what many of us Libertarians are talking about when we are talking about small government. It's not about lawlessness at all. It's about efficiency. We are diverse and unique and we all have different needs - just as we all have different things we can offer.

Big Government doesn't embrace diversity. It kills it. Plain and simple. Diversity is enhanced when you focus down into the wonderful little cultural and religious pockets that we have in this country until we can identify a real problem that affects a substantial number of people. Then, we can look at the resources of others in that pocket or nearby areas and figure out what we have that can solve the problem.

In the same way that it has been proven that a trickle down economy doesn't work, trickle down government can't possibly work either. By the time it gets down to the people who need it, it's not only been dilluted by all the red tape and bureaucratic nonsense, but it's probably not even what most of the people receiving it actually need, anyway. 

The social solutions for our society are, by necessity, a bottom up process. And by "bottom" - I'm not talking about money. I'm talking about group size. It's about the individual, then the town government, then the county, then the state, and THEN if it's something that is so broad reaching that the problem is still clear and there are a substantial number of people affected by it and who can be helped with the solution - THEN the fed can come in and lend a hand.

I'm just sayin'...