The Idealogy of Smaller Government

Ideas that seem too good to be true usually are, like "Hey that darn government taking all your money as taxes is really too damned big and needs a diet plan, and when WE succeed on this diet, we'll give you all your money back, well most of it."

I can agree in part agree with the assertion that institutions like Government, without external constraints will tend to grow beyond a size that it is beneficial to do so, becoming a self-propagating solution looking for a problem and all that.

The part that bothers me is not the idea of questioning the proper role of government, but the reverse extremism. Like an anorexic pushing "leanness" to the limits until proper understanding of health is lost. I don't necessarily think government must get smaller, not necessarily, but more I think it is about prioritizing.

I admit I feel better about infrastructure, education type spending, spending on things that are long term investments that will not only benefit now, but the next generation as well. I like investments that can REDUCE the cost of living in the future. AT LEAST I see these things must be considered along with the present needs.

The danger in the "starve the beast" mentality of self-interest is the ease of being "penny wise, pound foolish", and diminishing the future through a lack of vision. I appreciate a sensible voice of prioritizing and limiting, but not as the only one.

And on LONGER term issues like global warming, even I am basically in denial, unwilling to admit my lifestyle might be contributing. I generally accept Kyoto Protocol ideals - anything that can help us better get a true cost of burning fossil fuels so we'll transition away sooner.