I think that those who want smaller government don’t necessarily want no government at the local level, they just want to pare down federal government to a more manageable, accountable, and effective size.

The man who built the school had a vested interest in building it. It was for his village, for his children. Government can never duplicate that drive, that motive. The Centrist is right that government can raise money quicker than can venture capitalists, but the gov’t has little interest in being efficient or producing high quality stuff while the entrepreneur has a profound interest in doing both of those things if they are to succeed.

Just a couple of thoughts. Fundamentally I don’t think we understand the essential role that self-interest plays in human decision-making. If we continue to disregard it, we will continue to make poor economic decisions for ourselves and our country

I would argue that government actually stifles specialization and promotes sameness in thinking. Institutions are very problematic in this regard. Big corporations also suffer from the same disease of being so big that they can’t get over themselves. Government agencies are not designed to think outside the box. The creativity and problem-solving that needs to take place is rarely going to be found in government or large corporations. It’s going to be found in the Swiss patent office or Buckminster Fuller’s living room.

I really agree with Thoreau’s take on what moves the country forward:

“This government never of itself furthured an enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it (the government) got out of its (the enterprise’s) way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got it its way.”

This is why I don’t think the stimulus or trusting fixing the economy to the government will work. It will always be up to us “the People” as to whether things will change. Pres. Obama can promise all he wants, but unless we change what we do and think and feel and want, the government can not change any thing.

This is why the vote without follow up pressure is so weak.

Hence Dave’s challenge to “small government types” to do more than just rant and rave about pork and waste. If we want government to be smaller, get involved and supplant it with local, non-governmental social programs that fix the problems so that the People don’t ask gov’t to step in and do it.

However, I’m not sure that I agree with Gandhi (or you) in his assertion that the vote is weak. The vote can be complete power. After all, the vote is what drives the motives of most politicians.

It’s the selfishness of American society that really causes the problem. We continue to elect officials that have power and can bring our city/state/location the most money. We don’t care about the greater good… we only care about our interests.

And don’t tell me, “I vote for XX.” Gandhi also said “[H]istory shows [the vote] has often turned against the voters themselves.” The vote is the weakest form of democracy. It convinces us that we have done something, when really we haven’t actually INFLUENCED anything. And after we vote, we just wait to see where the chips fall until the mid-term election when we “exercise democracy” again.

In the next little while, I’m going to create on my blog a list of things I want changed; state bills, etc. I’m going to write letters to my elected representatives or other persons of influence and ask the readers of my blog to copy the letters to their own representatives. This way, the decision-makers are getting my opinion from various sources. Gandhi (can you tell what I’m reading right now?) said “I should expect rulers to rule according to my wish, otherwise I cease to help them to rule me. . . .” I think every American should live by this creed. It’s time for the (public) servants to start listening to and obeying their masters (us). But the masters need to take an active and informed role.

I think Dave has a very valid point with his contention against the “small government” advocates, however. Many don’t see the need for the government to provide any of these services. My point was that it is up to the localities to decide what they will do locally and if Massachusetes wants a big government, they can have one. If Utah Co. doesn’t want the gov’t to do anything, they can deal with the problems or positives of that.

The only government that needs to essentially be small is the one with the over-arching power. The reason that most of those who Dave said “walked out” of the Constitutional convention or fought against it, did so because they feared the behemoth-ness that they saw a national government becoming.