Any reader that has spent a little time on this blog should know I don't support the "shrink government" initiative that is supported by many of my fellow citizens. In fact, I am sure that a good many of you have figured out that my leanings are in the opposite direction. I am not ashamed to admit it; I support B-I-G government!!
Is being a supporter of B-I-G government consistent with Taoist philosophy? In the idealized state, no. Both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu envision a simpler and naturally anarchic existence.
However, in the works of both sages there is a more pragmatic strain as well. Much of their words are directed at the leaders of their day. I believe that both of them understood that the idealized state is an objective to move toward in time.
I will write a later post on why I think that B-I-G government today would better lead to the vision of the idealized state than what we have in place now OR what conservatives are pushing for.
I realize my conservative and libertarian readers see it differently, but so be it. You can write on your own blogs or in the comments section here what a knucklehead I am. ;-)
Of course, it should go without saying that the B-I-G government I favor wouldn't resemble the framework of government we have now. At present, government almost solely caters to the interests of elite and provides the short shrift to everyone else. So, to be clear, I favor B-I-G government that serves the interests and needs of the vast majority.
If I had the power to fashion a B-I-G government, here are some of the things I would do.
Is being a supporter of B-I-G government consistent with Taoist philosophy? In the idealized state, no. Both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu envision a simpler and naturally anarchic existence.
However, in the works of both sages there is a more pragmatic strain as well. Much of their words are directed at the leaders of their day. I believe that both of them understood that the idealized state is an objective to move toward in time.
I will write a later post on why I think that B-I-G government today would better lead to the vision of the idealized state than what we have in place now OR what conservatives are pushing for.
I realize my conservative and libertarian readers see it differently, but so be it. You can write on your own blogs or in the comments section here what a knucklehead I am. ;-)
Of course, it should go without saying that the B-I-G government I favor wouldn't resemble the framework of government we have now. At present, government almost solely caters to the interests of elite and provides the short shrift to everyone else. So, to be clear, I favor B-I-G government that serves the interests and needs of the vast majority.
If I had the power to fashion a B-I-G government, here are some of the things I would do.
- Reduce the military budget by 50% from current levels over the next 10 - 15 years. This would include shutting down US military bases all over the world and bringing home our service men and women from those locations as well as from Iraq and Afghanistan. (Yes, I realize this is a reduction, but I would make up for it and then some with the strategies listed below.)
- Increase the number of school teachers and counselors across the land. This would afford the nation's children with more individualized attention so they could bloom and blossom into thinking adults.
- Increase the number of safety and compliance officers to insure big business and government itself is putting the needs of our citizens ahead of profits.
- Provide full funding for PBS and community access media across the land.
- Provide full funding for Amtrak and commit to increasing its coverage and usage.
- Expand the Peace Corps and Americorp. Increase the stipend amounts to help put Americans back to work.
- Provide much more funding for scientific research, particularly in the area of global warming.
- Remove insurance companies out of the health care business. Health care would be administered through the government by public sector UNION members.
That's my short list for B-I-G government. I'm certain that is more than enough for many of you to take me to task.
You have my vote.
ReplyDeleteAt heart I have affection that leans to the left but I am not sure if growing government will help humanity. I also do not think that shrinking government will help humanity. The Soviet Union was a good example of what the fruit of a fully grown government looks like. Was it big government that lead to its dysfunctional corruption? I think not. I think the problem with humanity isn't found whether government should be bigger or smaller. The problem lies within, and the lack of any interest whatsoever to solve the paradoxical riddle inside. A human being is obsessed with itself and is in need of a transformation where the fixation of self-interests drops off and a selfless-life arises. If this occurred either big or small government would work. It is not an outside transformation that we need. It is an inside transformation. I guess we are both guilty of being idealistic.
ReplyDeleteThurman,
ReplyDelete:-)
Mark,
I don't necessarily disagree at all with what you've written. I guess the reason I favor big over small is that I think too few people view transformation as an issue at all. So, I hope that a nudge might help to get the ball rolling.
I think the problem is that any organization over a certain level --150 persons? seven? --is dysfunctional. I can't imagine any government that would accrue benefits to everyone.
ReplyDeleteBaroness has a point, humans evolved to deal with small bands and tribes; wider society will always have problems.
ReplyDeleteThat said, it could still be a hell of a lot better. The problem is the isolation: everyone goes home to their house to watch TV at night, and work isn't about society, it's about competition and productivity. We don't seem to share a common society anymore, we all feel we need to protect "what's ours" which is why everyone's all about the idea tax cuts and why so many hate the big government and the waste and the fact that their money supports sponges and mooches on the dole. My sister is one of these, we argue about it.
The point is, as Thurman said a few days ago, we need the power to fail, for the TVs and stuff to be off for a while, to connect back with our neighbors. As long as we keep drugging ourselves with their propoganda and advertisements (same thing really), dosing ourselves in all our free time, we're never going to have a real civil society.
I consider television one of the worse and most insiduous things about this brave new world we live in.
That and enclosed, private, high speed transportation: the personal automobile. You immediately feel the difference on a bicycle, when you suddenly feel obliged to look at other people as people, to nod or wave and say hello, rather than just try to get around that "obstacle."
Broadcast media and cars...indeed. One of the best exercises I have done recently was driving my car (which is a car you have to actively participate in driving, not an automatic robotish living room sofa of a ca with a "sound system") without a radio for nearly two years.
ReplyDeleteI have since installed a radio (but I don't have an antenna) and use it for personally chosen edifying things. Likewise with TV; I see nothing wrong with having a TV; it is when it is just "on", noisy, spoon-fed drivel that it becomes insidious.
This is far from the pont of the post, but I do find that tuning out the noise of the media is healthy.