Why do we still consider "the State" to be an inherently "good" institution that can cure our societal woes?

Question

This reasoning primarily came about during the era of great empires. Britain, through its government, came to dominate the world for a few hundred years. Germany took awhile to catch on, but they quickly became one badass country that nearly dominated Europe not once, but twice. Russia in particular is (rather, Soviet Russia was) a rather egregious example of Communism, which stressed total subservience to the state.

America, on the other hand, was rather libertarian in it's ideals and suspicious of government intervention. Until we got that Socialist prick Roosevelt in office. Yes, he may have brought us out of the Depression, but it took a war to do so.

Ever since the era of the New Deal, however, the government has told it's citizenry that government is a force for good, it is there to protect us. Even if it's from ourselves. Who is better suited to ensuring social conformity than the Almighty State itself.
The 20th Century is over now. Why don't we realize that government

is essentially a means of power and social control. It doesn't ensure liberty like it was intended to do, nay, it quashes it like so many maggots on a bloated corpse of a once proud populace.

Why do we continue to believe this nonsense?

Terribly sorry, I forgot to add:
I am a libertarian, more a "police-watch state" kind of fellow. On top of it, I live in notoriously permissive Nevada, so at least I have similar types to live among.

I do recognize the necessary evil that is government is indeed necessary. However, I am terrified by the recent intrusion into private spheres as of late. Take NYC for example, or London in particular. Both are cities with incredible surveillance technology to monitor their own citizens. I bet it is used at least 25% of the time to catch drug offenders, and the drug war is by far the most horrible of all "programs". Rather it is a means of justifying a large police state. Our 1st,4th,5th, and many more amendments are in tatters. We are no longer America, but nearly the equivolent of ancient Rome.

I hope we don't have our own Nero or Caligula.

Answer 1

Correction, a correctly implemented state is good. A poorly implemented one is bad.

I definately lean libertarian, but not as a minarchist or an anarchist. There has to be some controls, or else human nature takes control. And in case you've missed the history of the world, human nature can be an incredibly ugly beast.

There are some things I believe a government should do, such as operate in exactly the way defined by it's people. For instance, I think everyone agrees that the interstate system is a fairly good thing. But I also think everyone would agree that the $250 million bridge to nowhere in Alaska is waste of tax dollars.

You can try to blame FDR, but he was responding to the times. The free wheelin and dealin that happened as a result of lax business rules drove the economy straight into the ground (inevitable given human nature). The rich didn't suffer so much, but it absolutely sucked to be anyone else.

Actually, it goes back even further than FDR. There was a series of supreme court decisions in the late 1800's and early 1900's that gave the government quite a bit of freedom. This actually set the stage for what was to come later.

IF our government restricted itself to what was in the Constitution , things would be more sane. In general though, that's always been the problem with government. They always grow.

The state can be good if a government with iron clad controls could be formed. Supposedly, we already have that. But with all the things like "executive signing statements", riders, and earmarking it really makes the controls somewhat useless.

In other words, I don't think we're there yet. But remember, it's not necessarily th government that's the problem. It's the people running it.

~X~

Answer 2

Yeah. I agree. It's the worst system . . . except for all the others.

If you want an end all be all, then it's terrible. But what choice do we have. Government must exist when you have millions of people living together. Otherwise, things that we take for granted like the supply of electricity and water will fail and many people will die. Without government of some kind, without forcing some people to go along some times, our situation here will become very insecure indeed. As such, we need government bad to intervene with its power. Otherwise, life becomes brutish and short.

The question should be posed this way: What should government get involved in? The military? Schools? Crime prevention and enforcement? Water supplies? Electricity? Roads? Welfare? Health care? Economic regulation? Perhaps ownership of industry? And then to what extent should government be involved in those things? That's really the tension between all the parties. Should it have outright control or just regulate a few things or have nothing at all to say about it? ]

Roads should be provided by the government. Why? Because no one else will do it as efficiently as the government. Should the government control all water supplies? No, but there does need to be some regulation, because farmers and city dwellers have battled over water for years and, if one or the other could get all the water, that one would take it . . . with disastrous consequences. But the market can also get water to where it needs to go efficiently. But only the government can ensure that water gets to everyone. If only the market were involved with no government, there would be certain inefficiencies and certain inequalities in the distribution of water.

And these are just a few of the examples. One cannot take a one side fits all. I love markets and I distrust government, but I cannot suggest markets are an end all be all to every single situation and I dread the day that the government ceases to function. Like everything else, we must be pragmatic about how we set up our governments and how we implement our philosophies. Life is full of trade offs and we must sometimes trade a little freedom for equality.

Answer 3

I truly have no anwswer for you other than to say that the American people have come to view the Federal Government as their mommies. I blame this primarily on FDR. At the time his policies were needed during a desperate time during our history.
From then on our government has become overly involved in our everyday lives. The American people have come to rely on the Government to tell them what is good for them and what they should avoid. Personally I don't want my Federal Government telling me what to do. Honestly I think it is a question of the people being apathetic, complacent and not willing to think for themselves. The government should not be a parent and should not rule the people with an iron fist.
So many people have become sheep and will follow whatever a legislator suggests. I agree with you that the time is over to view our government as parents and we need to stand up and take care of ourselves.
Rugged individualisim...suck it up...make something of yourselves and don't rely on the government. I guess I didn't really answer your question but I do agree with your sentiments!

Answer 4

So what are you, exactly? A Libertarian? An anarchist?

It seems to me that most Americans have a love-hate relationship with government. There are certain things that they like the government to do for them and certain things that they think that the government shouldn't do, because it isn't the government's business.