Niklas’ has some thoughtful comments about taxation and how he struggles to communicate the desire for less but better government, and it has me thinking about, in a very broad sense, what I want, and why what I want creates an internal struggle. This is a fairly rambling, possibly incoherent, jumble of thoughts, as a struggle is wont to be.
Like Niklas, I too want “smaller” government that is more efficient, but there are areas where on the margin I want “more” government if it is efficient. Smaller and more are in quotation here because unlike efficiency, these are tricky and sometimes inconsistent notions. A minimum wage requires no actual change government taxation or revenues, in contrast to the earned income tax credit. Yet in reality it functions are a tax on one group of businesses for a subsidy to one group of workers. In which case is the government “smaller”? But I digress….
My point is that I’d like in some cases more government, like a carbon tax, but I’m also not okay with that being used as a revenue prop for the status quo of way-too-inefficient policies that we do have. I’d like the government to spend money efficiently subsidizing and incentivizing effective early childhood education, but can’t bring myself to let government take more money and become a larger player in education until they stop doing the things they already do so poorly.
I think in the whole I would be comfortable with a fairly large amount government spending that was efficient and effective. In part I’d be ok with this because in the long-run, my small fantasy is that a successful government should make itself less necessary. If we got early childhood education up through high school working really really well, I think government would be able to roll itself back significantly in a lot ways, from prisons to welfare. With efficient and robust safety nets and a dynamic and healthy economy we could arrive at a place where who are poor are very likely to have chosen such a state, and so we don’t have to have the impossible, expensive, and sisyphean task of preventing all poverty.
Some, perhaps much, of this, I understand, is wishful thinking. I think one measure of how liberaltarian versus libertarian you are is the extent to which you think my vision of good government is a possibility. I shift along this spectrum. Another difference, of course, is whether this vision, possible or not, is even desirable. Here, I am more firmly in the liberaltarian camp.
The libertarian part of this liberaltarian vision is the fact that a required first step to good governance is having a government that can stop doing things it very clearly should not be doing. Even good governments make mistakes, and if they can’t back out of them that provides a serious problem to the sort of effective government vision I’ve laid out. I am very skeptical of our governments ability to do this. Likewise, there are far too many people who want the government to be things that I think are incompatible with effective governance, like a middle class jobs program, and a guarantor of universal safety in everything we do.
So despite the progressive vision of government I’ve said I would be happy with, I remain in the short-run more interested in seeing government be, in the main, “smaller” rather than “larger”, whatever that means. You might confusingly sum up my position as wanting a small government now, so that we can have a large government going forward that makes a large government in the future unnecessary.
Clearly, I am with Niklas in having a hard time expressing exactly what it is that I want here.

7 comments
Comments feed for this article
Sunday ~ December 12th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Mike
The word “efficient” is doing a lot of work in your political theory. You use it 7 times here, and Niklas uses it several times as well. It might be helpful to break down what you want that word to convey – I’m not sure what you mean by it.
I’m assuming some sort of pareto thing, where the government completes markets or corrects for breakdowns in prices or whatnot, but that doesn’t fit the range of uses here.
Tuesday ~ December 14th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Adam Ozimek
Mike,
You’re correct, I mean efficient in the traditional economist usage of pareto efficient. It’s probably somewhat confusing to read it used in that sense and in the “a more efficient government” sense, because the latter usually means operating efficiency. I mean a government whose actions are more pareto efficient, although I have a hard time picturing operating inefficiencies which are pareto efficient, so I think you could call the former a special case of the latter.
Sunday ~ December 12th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Lord
” Yet in reality it functions are a tax on one group of businesses for a subsidy to one group of workers.”
Most assuredly it functions nothing like this. It is neither a tax nor a subsidy, but a prohibition. If you are confused about this, no wonder you are confused about everything else as well.
Monday ~ December 13th, 2010 at 11:29 am
sardonic_sob
To spend is to tax: to prohibit is to reward. To tell a group of persons that they cannot do a thing which would afford them some advantage over other persons, whether this is your intention or not rewards those persons over whom the advantage would have been held. This may or may not be, overall, a negative effect, but it is real and inescapable.
For instance, in a very real and literal sense, the laws against the legal sale of marijuana subsidize sellers of illegal marijuana. Do you think for a moment that some doofus with a bunch of grow lights in his basement could compete against ADM or Altria? Or that people would buy drugs of unknown source and quality from unsavory characters in dangerous places for outrageous multiples of their costs of production if they could buy it at the liquor store in inspected, safe commercial packages?
Monday ~ December 13th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
IVV
I think you just want institutions that deliver high public value at as low a cost as possible.
Personally, I don’t think there’s really much difference if the institutions involved are “government”, “charity”, “small business”, or “companies”. In all cases, they are other people doing something ostensibly on your behalf for your benefit, and requiring some form of remuneration to fund it. The question may remain as to how to receive the funding and distribute the benefits, and the answer to that is whatever provides the greatest benefit at the margin. If that means that I am taxed for healthcare, but must/am allowed to buy my own food on the market, so be it.
I’m willing to change what the cost for optimal public service is, depending on what is needed when. This is in no way fixed, and different people receive different utilities from different levels of public service. It really is a coordination nightmare, and so… I guess we’ll always have some level of waste. We still need to drive it down whenever possible.
Tuesday ~ December 14th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Chuck Miller
I also don’t think small or large is appropriate when describing the role government should play. It depends on function… what do you want government to do and how well you can get government to accomplish that function. You want cost-effective government… government where you get what you pay for.
Wednesday ~ December 15th, 2010 at 1:19 am
Jonny b
“ With efficient and robust safety nets and a dynamic and healthy economy we could arrive at a place where who are poor are very likely to have chosen such a state, and so we don’t have to have the impossible, expensive, and sisyphean task of preventing all poverty.”
It’s called Canada. Come visit some time.