Getting cosy with government
The news that the British government has with the personal and financial details of nearly half the population will lead many Americans to wonder two things: 1) why are the Brits and their government so cosy, and 2) is this not further proof that this such cosiness only leads to bad things in the long term?
It is living proof, is it not, of the view that government is the problem not the solution? This is not just a Republican view either; Americans of all political stripes are much less likely than Brits to blame the government for their problems or look to the government for solutions. And yet... I detect an intense yearning among many Americans for a government that actually works, and a falling out of love with entirely private sector solutions to the nation's problems.
Of course no-one in the UK will ever trust the child benefit system again - but private companies gather data with even greater relentless efficiency and are just as capable of losing it or sharing it without our permission. I am typing this on a train between New York and Washington DC and no-one on the train can see what I am writing (most are on early Thanksgiving journeys and are asleep!) but plenty of companies (Google, Microsoft, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ itself) have the power to access my actions this morning on this computer.
The torch of freedom in America used to be waved with great gusto by those who knocked government of all kinds, and would have seen the child benefit fiasco of further proof that they were right. And yet, after , there is a notion here that it is a little more complex than that. I suppose real would point out that you can choose which private sector entities to deal with, a choice not available when the State comes knocking at your door, but realistically can you? Should you?
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
This American doesn't want more government. I want less, much less, and unfettered free markets. No social "safety" network, no burdensome regulations, no huge taxes funding incompetent bailouts, just individual liberty of the sort that made America great.
As a Briton I have to say I've never trusted the governmenmt anyway but the proof that the private sector is about a bezillion times worse lies with two words - Royal Mail.
Royal Mail have, in the past, defrauded us and our neighbours, actually stolen the post, delievered everyones mail through our letterbox at once (one time we receieved about 70 letters through the door at once, addressed to different people throughout the area), have delievered opened letters (including my passport on one occasion), tried to ram parcels through the letterbox and failed to deliver birthday cards with cash in (my grandmother has learnt from this mistake now).
The fact is public organisations shouldn't be run by private companies where shareholders interests are the first priority.
It makes me want to have even more limited government. Especially, since I live in the Western U.S.
I want the government to take care of Health Care and Unemployment. After that, other solutions can be worked out maybe with government as a partner.
It is too easy to be spied on now.
I have to say I do not share either Justin Webbs or Pliny's ideal here. A quick peek at a history book tells this American that regulation of industry for the safety and health of workers and consumers is very needed and desirable (I have no desire to run the risk of a finger in my ground beef thank you).
We would like a government that works, mainly because it would be kind of a novelty at this point. That being said I do not think I would care to trust the government to be the sole provider of almost anything beyond firefighters and military force. A mix of private solutions and government action is best in my eyes. Before you ask, yes we do have something like that going on. Look at UPS and the Post Office.
I honestly don't mind big government over here in America. I just wish it were there to protect the people and not the privileged few who are in power.
I like that fact that the powers that be right now profess so hard that they're there to protect our freedom by cutting down on big government, yet they're the one's taking all our rights away. The right to choose, the right to choose whomever to marry, the right to privacy, etc...
Also, government is trying to lower taxes, and instead of cutting out things like a pointless war, and rediculous government spending, we're tearing down our social saftey nets. The first thing government needs to do is protect it's people. If I have to pay more taxes for that, so be it. I don't want to pay taxes for an agenda that 70-80 percent of American's don't agree with.
I honestly don't mind big government over here in America. I just wish it were there to protect the people and not the privileged few who are in power.
I like that fact that the powers that be right now profess so hard that they're there to protect our freedom by cutting down on big government, yet they're the one's taking all our rights away. The right to choose, the right to choose whomever to marry, the right to privacy, etc...
Also, government is trying to lower taxes, and instead of cutting out things like a pointless war, and rediculous government spending, we're tearing down our social saftey nets. The first thing government needs to do is protect it's people. If I have to pay more taxes for that, so be it. I don't want to pay taxes for an agenda that 70-80 percent of American's don't agree with.
Like liberals who view large corporations with suspicion, conservatives and libertarians view the government with that same suspicion. They believe that they know what's best for themselves, not the government.
This is why, in some circles, Hillary Clinton is considered a socialist.
I have to admit that I often cringe when I hear the citizens' questions at the Democrats' debates. They almost always ask why the government isn't doing more for them.
Being a good Govt. is no different to being a good manager.
Hands up all those who have, or have had, mangers who are bossy, bullish arrogant, rude and dictators? Many i suspect.
And how many have had managers who allow the workers to do as they please so long as the work is done on time and effeciently?..very few i suspect too.
Yet this is what good Govt. is about, the same as being a good manager.
I have heard it said that a good mamager has nothing to do; the reason being that all the instructions are being acrried out and hence no interferance is required. If you couple this with, so long as it is done....you have perfect Govt.
A Govt. that doesn't interfer, unless absolutely necessary and also allows the people to get on with their own lives so long is harms no one.
Yet Bush, Blair and Brown all born with the "bad managers" gene!
Perhaps they should come to Japan where i currently live. The Govt. here is a 3rd world communistic dicatorship..yet the Japanese are too polite to do anything about it, after being subjugated for many centuries.
Even bad Govt. seems appealing to me now.!!!
Being an American from a very poor background, I look at envy at what other countries offer their citizens. I have recently immigrated to Canada, where a healthy mixture of European-style government and American-style capitalism make for what could possibly be one of the most successful societies on Earth. The American system is outdated and inhumane; it was created alongside theocracy and slavery, creating a system in which those willing to harm others succeed. Not to sound too "pink" or "red", but pure capitalism as it is [almost] practiced in the United States is closer to the system of most third world countries than to the more educated, wealthier parts of the world. For a good example aside from Canada, look at Latin America: heavily socialist, but with enough competition to be the fastest-improving region of the world at the moment. Who is in decline? Hmmm....small government + small minds = crumbling society.
It just seems amazing to me that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ promotes itself as impartial and this man seems hell-bent on towing jingoistic one-liners about American life throughout his blog postings and sadly in his reporting. The one-dimensional seems to be his game. He simply can't help making fun - in true British public school style - of Americans praying for rain in Georgia, which may or may not be ridiculous, but not more-so than all the things previous comments here pointed to relating to other religious beliefs that could seem equally idiotic.
My recommendation to him - which he and his "erudite" team of managers and superiors - are probably going to pay no notice to is to please adhere to his own company's guidelines when it comes to reporting on the US in this blog. It is quite clear that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ - following several embarrasing situations involving other overly- confident members of their staff - tightened their guidelines and made it publicly known that staff would no longer be able to spout opinions in newspapers etc...is this any different? Is this not the slippery slope theory in action? Please Mr Webb give Americans more credit and stop sneering ( in tone and otherwise) in your reporting. But, most importantly, refer back to what your own employer says about its journalists expressing opinions because surely - no matter how intelligent you may or may not be - you simply don't work for a firm that allows or officially condones this sort of journalism.
State and local governments ought to take over a lot of what the federal government is doing. The federal government is bloated, inefficient and corrupt. The closer government is to the people the better. The less government, the better.
"Big government" is codeword for "high taxes". Considering the IRS is unconstitutional to begin with, I'd say no thanks.
I don't want government to invade on my private life or rights. But the sad fact is that in the areas of health care, workplace safety, and retirement benefits especially, the "devil we know" has proven itself far better than the private sector. Off the subject, but I also feel that as an employee I have to negotiate with my employer for wages and benefits and our employees should have to do the same.
Funny, last night after my British friend railed at the bias news media in America I pointed out to them that ´óÏó´«Ã½ is a state funded organization. Why is it that Brits are willing to accept the government controlling the source of their news?
You are right, Americans do not trust the government. BUT government is a necessary devil and we believe that if it is going to take our taxes then it should offer us safety and security (as in Hurricane Katrina).
Clare,
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ may be funded by the British government but it is run as an independent organisation and strictly monitored by independent bodies.
Also Clare,
If you have a strong state-funded broadcaster that is kept in check (like the ´óÏó´«Ã½), the private broadcasters are more reluctant to be bias.
For example, in Britain we have a channel called Sky News that is owned by News Corporation.
Sky News is relatively impartial compared to its sister channel in America, Fox News.
This is because they know that if they start being bias their viewers will be more inclined to turn to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ because most people prefer impartial news.
As such, our broadcast news is rarely opinionated. And as, The Hutton Report confirmed, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is no stooge of the British government.
Drop the "Katrina" stuff. It is not a public or private sector issue.
The Louisiana and New Orleans politicians took the levee maintenance money and used it elsewhere. They eased zoning to allow preferred developers to build in flood plains. The governor did not know her options, responsibilities, or even to ask. The mayor left town instead of lead.
It is not, nor should it be a federal government responsibility to burden the nation with bailing out corrupt and inept state and local politicians.
Take time to look at the people and leaders of Mississippi to see real heroes come together and make the best of a bad situation.
We would be better served to think the problems through before giving up even more self-responsibility.
´óÏó´«Ã½ Protector General,
I was not insinuating that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is a government stooge. I was trying to further my point that americans do not trust the government like the brits do. Obviously, I read the ´óÏó´«Ã½ news (though mostly because i like to read about foreign issues rather than Britney Spears).
Yes, I agree that Fox is biased, that is why when I am in the states I watch CNN or Free Speech television.
I've never quite understood Libertarians. No society in the entire history of our species has ever functioned like that. Even the Jeffersonian model, a sort of agrarian libertarianism, was pretty much outmoded by the time he actually became president, and whatever merits it had, it was sent to the dustbin by the Civil War, which was, more than anything else, a victory for industrialization and large government.
Frankly Libertarians are just living in a fantasy world. Even the Romans understood that you need at least bread and circuses or your hold on power is going to be very shortlived.
Cut off people en masse from health care, from government protections, from a social safety net in our modern world, and you invite a disaster.
I think there's a useful discussion to be had about government waste and about unnecessary regulation, but to imagine for a second that the American economy and the larger society could trundle along without government involvement in this day and age is nothing more than a pure fantasy.
Pliny--thanks. I agree completely. I also know I'm not by any means the only one of my age group (22)who prefers less government interference.
To the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Protector General:
Do you have that script memorized or can you write it down to keep it handy?
To me, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is biased/opinionated for what it DOESN'T report. Not so much for what it does report.
For Clare, Kathleen et al, since you think the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is biased and does not report the news, as they wish, can they please provide those of us who watch the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and read their website, with an alternative news source that is not into one line sound bites, news on celebraties inside leg measurements, nor pumping itself and its countries foriegn policy as being the one and only bar none.
I would be very happy to watch a news program that does report what others don't report.
Probably owing to lack of time and funds and actual news taking place...but hey, im sure an inside leg measurement or what was eaten for lunch by some Z-grade celeb is news worthy to others!
I am interested to know in what ways the US government interferes in the lives of 22 year olds. More importantly, I'd like to know how that interference harms their quality of life.
Quebec is an example of a society too cosy with government for its own good I believe. Here, for example, Transports Québec builds sub-standard roads and signage and these departments' budgets are appallingly little considering the job at hand and the taxation level of every Quebecker. Our hospitals? Sub-standard as well. Our schools? The same. The money is spent on non-quality-improving entitlements and not on quality-improving measures for roads, hospitals or schools. How can government get away with this while in the private sector companies doing so end up bankrupt? This is a fundamental flaw of government and how it is allowed to spend our money.
We end up with a society where we get to pay a LOT for very little. No value for my tax dollar, the government of Quebec actually devalues my hard-earned dollar. Because these are government services, this delivery of non-quality can go on forever. Were it the private sector, perhaps would we stand a chance of seeing the quality of services improve...
The question is (very importantly) : how do we set in place a system of government services where quality actually improves systematically and automatically? Because this is PRECISELY what the taxpayers of today and tomorrow need.
i think unfettered capitolism is invariable going to extort,bribe,monopolise,price-fix,etc.i am an entrepreneur but never a capitalist.i believe govt should oversee every scrap of business conducted.without enough oversight banks have effectively ripped-off the poorest americans.
I am one of those "nutty" libertarians (of the Hayek variety) that constantly defend your freedoms and have spent large amounts of time studying history, economics, philosophy, and statistics of various kinds and I can regret to inform you that government is very rarely the answer to any of our problems.
In fact the government is responsible for most of our problems with regards to the semi-private businesses known as corporations. Corporations receive special limited liability from the government that allows them to do things which no ordinary business could ever do. Also the government gives corporations other special rights such as the recognition of corporations as artificial and immortal persons. This is where many of the externalities that corporations create come from. It is government that is the problem here not the free market. Corporations are creations of the government not the free market and that is why if corporations are going to exist they must therefore be regulated by the government in order to try and partially control their various externalities which the government is ultimately responsible for creating.
Also governments are well known for passing regulations which protect corporations from competition and force at least partial cartelization in sectors such as banking. Also many of the regulations that control corporations are written by corporations and therefore often benefit corporations in the long run. Regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley help big business and hurt medium and small business because the bigger businesses are able to spread out the cost more effectively than the smaller businesses which acts as a substantial cost benefit to those large corporations when competing against smaller competitors.
Also I don't want to end entitlement programs immediately because people have become too dependent upon them however I would like to start to see things change such as acknowledging that Social Security is nothing more than welfare for old people as their is no asset based trust fund. If we would just acknowledge that Social Security is welfare for old people then we could more effectively deal with poverty in our society including through use of government mechanisms which while I don't approve of I understand can be made to work better.
Also before any of you accuse me of not understanding I am getting a Masters in Public Administration, so I know the arguments for collectivist programs funded by force through the government. I understand the apparent hypocrisy of getting the degree but it is the appropriate degree for me as I want to work in the non-profit sector or as a city manager. I don't hate government I just think people are over-reliant on it.
My observation of America from afar lead me to think that there is a bit of a contradiction between the theory of small government, and the reality of big government having a large impact on people's lives. Irrespective of where you draw the line on the State's responsibilities, it seems to me that it will always be expected to regulate extensively and deliver a large range of services in modern developed countries. There's no going back to a sort of state of innocence where the government no longer needs to do anything but keep order and enforce contracts.
This means all countries, even if they are trying to shrink the State, need to pay attention to making it work well in the functions it retains. Dreaming of dismantling it altogether is futile. The US sometimes loses out in this respect, because its public sector seems often to be underfunded and neglected, yet bears many crucial responsibilities, like infrastructure and education.
This is why the debate in Britain about how to make public services work efficiently is so important. We need to accept that the State is not going to wither away, and find ways of making it work better.
My observation of America from afar lead me to think that there is a bit of a contradiction between the theory of small government, and the reality of big government having a large impact on people's lives. Irrespective of where you draw the line on the State's responsibilities, it seems to me that it will always be expected to regulate extensively and deliver a large range of services in modern developed countries. There's no going back to a sort of state of innocence where the government no longer needs to do anything but keep order and enforce contracts.
This means all countries, even if they are trying to shrink the State, need to pay attention to making it work well in the functions it retains. Dreaming of dismantling it altogether is futile. The US sometimes loses out in this respect, because its public sector seems often to be underfunded and neglected, yet bears many crucial responsibilities, like infrastructure and education.
This is why the debate in Britain about how to make public services work efficiently is so important. We need to accept that the State is not going to wither away, and find ways of making it work better.
My observation of America from afar lead me to think that there is a bit of a contradiction between the theory of small government, and the reality of big government having a large impact on people's lives. Irrespective of where you draw the line on the State's responsibilities, it seems to me that it will always be expected to regulate extensively and deliver a large range of services in modern developed countries. There's no going back to a sort of state of innocence where the government no longer needs to do anything but keep order and enforce contracts.
This means all countries, even if they are trying to shrink the State, need to pay attention to making it work well in the functions it retains. Dreaming of dismantling it altogether is futile. The US sometimes loses out in this respect, because its public sector seems often to be underfunded and neglected, yet bears many crucial responsibilities, like infrastructure and education.
This is why the debate in Britain about how to make public services work efficiently is so important. We need to accept that the State is not going to wither away, and find ways of making it work better.
My observation of America from afar lead me to think that there is a bit of a contradiction between the theory of small government, and the reality of big government having a large impact on people's lives. Irrespective of where you draw the line on the State's responsibilities, it seems to me that it will always be expected to regulate extensively and deliver a large range of services in modern developed countries. There's no going back to a sort of state of innocence where the government no longer needs to do anything but keep order and enforce contracts.
This means all countries, even if they are trying to shrink the State, need to pay attention to making it work well in the functions it retains. Dreaming of dismantling it altogether is futile. The US sometimes loses out in this respect, because its public sector seems often to be underfunded and neglected, yet bears many crucial responsibilities, like infrastructure and education.
This is why the debate in Britain about how to make public services work efficiently is so important. We need to accept that the State is not going to wither away, and find ways of making it work better.