Of all the nations in the world it seems the US has the most politicians admonishing an ideal of “small government”. There are a lot of both conservatives and liberals alike who see it as a virtue for a nation to have a government that involves itself in peoples lives as little as possible. This is the ideal, but does it hold any cimilarities whith the reality?

The US government is the one true superpower in the world at the moment. It holds troops in dozens of countries. The US has spends more money on military than any other country in the world and even more than most other countries put to gether. This money comes from the pocket of the American taxpayer.  The government supports domestic arms manufacturers whith incredible sums of money. Does this seem like a “small government”?

The US has more agencies than a common citizen can keep track of. There are many different agencies, that have what have you secret programs and agendas. Only decades later we find out how they have fought secret wars and assasinations around the globe. How these wars have been funded by selling drugs (mainly to the American populace) and how innocent people in other countries have not been spared from carpet bombing, like in Laos, all the while the free press of the world knew nothing. No wonder all the conspiracy theories are so popular. Does this seem like a “small government”?

The wars are not fought for nothing, of course. They have political and economical gains. The common taxpayer and citizen is lead to believe these wars are fought for their safety, while in reality they are fought to support the business interrests of US corporations and the personal investments of US politicians in arms manufacturing companies and in corporations that extract raw materials from the developing countries. Does this strike you as a “small government”?

In the real world however, the US citizen is threathened by terrorists, who hate not the American people, not the common man, but the foreign politics and campaingns of the corporations and military. They hate the dictatorships and apartheid systems supported by the US. The terrorists fight whith suicide attacks, roadside bombs and their minds are often filled whith religious rhetorics. Faith is something people often do not depend upon until they have nothing concrete to depend upon to. That is why religion plays such a great part in the  terrorist agenda. The terrorist threat has lead the US police and all those numerous security agencies to take even tighter hold of the nation. The government acts as if it had lost its trust in the citizens. While the US army is most expensive per capita the number of prisoners is also one of the highest in the world. The power of the agencies has grown as a result of agressive foreign policy they have made, indipendent from the diplomacy of the politicians. Does this seem like a “small government”?

The US government has spent billions and billions to support private banks not to go conrupt. To stop the economy from falling. Yet, the banks and their owners were the responsible ones for the decline of the economy. Their thirst for more money (while most of them have more than Scrooge) and willingness to take wild risks. It is their greed that hurt the economy in the first place. They are a very small minority of people who have the society by the balls. So that the democratically appointed politicians can not decide where the money should be spent, but they are forced to support the greed of these risk taking maniacs. Does that sound like a “small government”?

The ideal of “small government” is a plot by and for the super rich against the common man. It is a smoke screen to fool the commoner to believe he/she is missing the money spent for taxes from his/her paycheck. This is not absolutely so. Yes, taxes are bad if they are spent on weapons and military to conquer and govern other nations. Only the very richest of people benefit from those sort of taxes, yet they do make a noise about how much money they are loosing for the taxman. However, if the taxes could be spent on common good, like general and public free healthcare, education and care for the elderly and disabled, it would be the common man in the recieving end. Why not?  The taxes are used for general infrastructure and for example free police force. Why would they not extend to free legal system? For sure better education and future for greater masses means less crimes and less need to police and less money to prison systems. Less money for military might mean less raw materials stolen from the developing countries, but it would be a lot fairer world. Would that not mean anything, to a  moral nation, to moral citizens? Would it really be government involving itself in peoples lives, if government would pay for better education for all? How could it be wrong if government payed for the healthcare of all the poor instead of building new aircraft carriers?

To whose lives is the “small government” not meant to involve itself? The purpose of a civilized society is to provide decend conditions for everyone, not only for the richest, not even only for them and the majority, but all. Otherwise it is just a machine that supports redistribution of wealth, from the poor to the rich. Remember wealth is not something the rich make. It is something produced by work. The rich are only the ones who have developed a system where they can rob as much as possible for themselves legally.

Advertisements