Comments on: Small and/or Limited Government: Some Distinctions

By: Bruuuce! Bruuuce! « Around The Sphere

Bruuuce! Bruuuce! « Around The Sphere — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:41:15 +0000

[...] should they aim for in economic and social policy? David Brooks, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, Will Wilkinson, Ron Haskins and Isabell Sawhill, and others have weighed in on this [...]

By: The Conscience of A Modern Conservative

The Conscience of A Modern Conservative — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:04:55 +0000

[...] should they aim for in economic and social policy? David Brooks, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, Will Wilkinson, Ron Haskins and Isabell Sawhill, and others have weighed in on this question. I’d be interested [...]

By: The conscience of a modern conservative « Consider the Evidence

The conscience of a modern conservative « Consider the Evidence — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:24:03 +0000

By: davidinman(.net) » Linkage

davidinman(.net) » Linkage — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:31:58 +0000

[...] Wilkinson on ‘liberaltarianism’. [...]

By: Conservatives, Red Tories, and Freedom « Upturned Earth

Conservatives, Red Tories, and Freedom « Upturned Earth — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 05:12:24 +0000

[...] how about that? What we have here is a case for why limited (though not necessarily: small) government is so important that does not trade on the individualistic, telos-free conception of [...]

By: The Big Government Debate Versus Limited Government - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:44:15 +0000

[...] Will Willinson also discussed the difference between small government and limited government recently: The fact that a government is small doesn’t rule out the possibility of egregious restrictions on non-economic liberties or of incredibly burdensome economic regulation. Suppose it takes two years to fill out all the paperwork, get all the licenses, etc. to start a small business, but once you do that, your profits aren’t taxed all. Suppose many forms of exchange are simply prohibited. You might have small government, low taxes, and very little economic freedom. Of course, a small government can ban abortion, prostitution, drugs, a free press, etc. just as well as a big one. Such a government may need to spend a lot of its modest budget on police and prisons instead of on genuine public goods. The size of the budget as as percentage of output doesn’t tell you anything about the composition of spending. This is a really important point. The United States spends a lot on prisons, the military, drug law enforcement, border patrol, etc. A lot of this is the opposite of rights-respecting, and a lot of it is downright wasteful. The composition of spending is important both as a matter or morality and a matter of economic growth (which I happen to think is also a matter of morality.) Which is all to say, the fact that a government is small logically implies almost nothing about either liberty, justice or efficiency… [...]

By: Ak Mike

Ak Mike — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:05:12 +0000

Jim M – is it possible that fairly free liberal democracies are more common among prosperous states that can afford a lot of government? And that poorer societies tend to have less freedom, but also can afford less government?

By: Balance Sheet Recession | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

Balance Sheet Recession | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:55:14 +0000

[...] Will Wilkinson notes in his piece on “limited” vs “small” government: The “size” of government is not a [...]

By: Sreedhar

Sreedhar — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:34:36 +0000

Anarchists often argue that if the public goods argument for state protection of rights (and the system of public finance it implies) is sound, then there is no principled basis for stopping at “minimal” government."

Tthis does not make sense. If you like coffee with a spoon of sugar, does it mean you will like it with ten?

In a Democracy, then, shouldn't it be the people that decide whether their government is to be small/limited/whatever? Isn't that what we have elections for?

Sure, this is subjective and dynamic. And that's the point: there is no objective measure of the size of a government.

- Sreedhar

By: Jim M

Jim M — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:32:47 +0000

It turns out that under a relatively restricted or negative sense of liberty, across the world government size does not predict less freedom. Look at the components of the Heritage Foundation's economic freedom index–the government size component correlates negatively with all the ones related to business, secure property, and freedom from corruption. Now, in a longitudinal sense–over time in the US, for example–you might have a case. But then you have to start weighing, say, the liberty to own other people as property against the liberty that derives from prohibitions against making me someone's property.

By: E.D. Kain

E.D. Kain — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:01:29 +0000

Fantastic post, as usual Will. This is something I've been thinking about for a long time, this distinction between small and limited, and where one can draw the line and say, no this government is already limited enough in this area. Privatization is not the answer here. It's a very difficult question to muddle through, however, because your not likely to find many people who agree on many of the various possibilities. This is the trick with the concept of liberaltarianism, too. A rights-based approach is also inherently objective. Nevertheless, I think you're precisely right that “Limited” and not merely “Small” is the best approach to determining where to extend or retract the public sphere. At least in this context the discussion can proceed with integrity.

By: chrismealy

chrismealy — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:25:50 +0000

The Constitution isn't valid because I never signed it!

Okay, just teasing.

By: Government Intervention as Economic Catalysis — Objectively Biased

Government Intervention as Economic Catalysis — Objectively Biased — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:11:02 +0000

[...] Wilkinson is having a pretty interesting meme ongoing at his blog about the kind of libertarianism that’s more appealing for [...]

By: The Final Word on Liber-al-tarianism | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

The Final Word on Liber-al-tarianism | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:30:48 +0000

[...] here, and then look here and here. Trust me – you’ll learn a lot; I know I did. This [...]

By: Mikk

Mikk — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:20:37 +0000

But if you happen to be imported Indian worker in Dubai, your passport is taken away immidietly on landing and later you live in concentration camp. And if you want to do business there, you must have local (Arab) partner/co-owner. That´s the law. It is not taxing, but you still have to give away 50% of your shares, so how much different is this.

Well, in Hong Kong they treat guest workers from mainland similar ways..