This is a reworking of an earlier post but I thought it would be fun weekend conversation.
Often when we get a debate between the big government/small government positions I see someone who supports the big government side come up with “well you oppose big government so you must refuse taking benefit X”.
I must confess that I’ve never seen the logic to that position.
I’m a relative moderate, or so I like to think, but I do think government can get too big. That does not mean that I oppose all government. I think it clearly has a role in many areas of life including building standards, public safety and the like. At the same time I think there are areas where the government regulation goes too far (such as when some cities try to ban certain types of food because they think it’s bad for you).
But I don’t see how that is a problem, I support some government but not all government. Indeed if the logic of some is ‘if you oppose my government program you must oppose all of them’ then would not the logical extension of that view be ‘if you support your government program you must support all government programs’.
Indeed the logical inference could be that nations like North Korea are amoung the best governed because the government there controls all apsects of life. I do not, of course apply this logic to anyone that I know or that participates at TMV. But at the same time you need to accept that you can oppose one government program while supporting another.
I also find it a bit bemusing that some of the same people who are making this argument are ones who have steadfastly opposed most roles carried out by the military and yet it is the Japanese and US military that is going in now to provide quake relief. If you apply the logic above then would not opposing the use of the military in program A mean you have to oppose using them now ? (Again I do not make that argument nor do I apply it to anyone unless they chime in here saying yes).
But I think the point is made.
However, as always, I welcome opposing views.