Can we have a robust welfare state without a police state?

[NobleSavage]

I'm all for a robust welfare state, but part of me thinks big government brings along with it diminished civil liberties. If I had to chose liberty vs big brother, I'd chose liberty. Is this a false dichotomy? I like how Rand Paul wants to cut back on the CIA, NSA, FBI, TSA, Homeland Security, and defense spending; however, he also wants to kill off social security, medicare, and public schools, etc. So what do you think, is it possible to have a strong welfare state without big bother tagging along?

 

[NobleSavage]

Can a mod move this to the PD? I accidentally put it in the lounge.

 

[Honza]

There are many countries in Europe which have strong welfare and civil liberties. I understand the Republican fear of over dominating governments but it seems that government can be regulated and managed without falling into totalitarianism. It seems like a very American fear - this liberty vs government argument.......

Having said that; Europe is not much of a better example - just think of all the wars. TBH Republicanism and Conservatism is very new to me. I used to be very ignorant of what it actually stood for.

 

[Underseer]

I think it's a false dichotomy myself.

 

[Davka]

I think it's a false dichotomy myself.

^^this.

 

[bilby]

Governments can do lots of different things. Their effectiveness in doing any one of those has no bearing on their effectiveness or otherwise in doing others; it is quite possible for a totalitarian police state to have little or no welfare provision for its needy citizens; and vice-versa.

Only a complete moron could possibly think that 'The government' is a single immutable entity; that you either have lots of it or little; and that a government that collects a lot of taxes to spend on, say, schools and hospitals, must therefore have a huge police force and draconian laws restricting the liberty of its citizens. A government is a conglomerate of more or less independent departments, and it is for the executive (and to a lesser extent, the legislature) to decide which departments to include, and what priority and funding to give to each.

If the relationship suggested by the OP were real, then you couldn't have the vast military expenditure the US currently engages in without similarly vast healthcare, education, transportation, housing, policing and social security operations. That parts of the government can grow while others do not is so obvious that I can only put the existence of the question down to the fact that the US spends far to much of the money that should be going into education on other things. Still, at least when the Canadians invade you will be able to beat the crap out of them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Easily: Negative income tax.

We need a substantially more productive economy for this to be viable, though.

 

[Lugubert]

There are many countries in Europe which have strong welfare and civil liberties. [...] Having said that; Europe is not much of a better example - just think of all the wars.

Europe isn't a monolith. Sweden's welfare system is quite robust. From free school meals through free higher education to very affordable health care (like a fairly low annual maximum pay for health care or medicine). Police state? Not even enough to keep up with crime. Wars? The last battle in Sweden was in 1809.

 

[boneyard bill]

I'm all for a robust welfare state, but part of me thinks big government brings along with it diminished civil liberties. If I had to chose liberty vs big brother, I'd chose liberty. Is this a false dichotomy? I like how Rand Paul wants to cut back on the CIA, NSA, FBI, TSA, Homeland Security, and defense spending; however, he also wants to kill off social security, medicare, and public schools, etc. So what do you think, is it possible to have a strong welfare state without big bother tagging along?

First off, I want to correct this notion that Rand Paul wants to kill off social security, medicare, and public schools. Not even his father went that far. Nor has he advocated getting rid of NSA, the CIA, Homeland Security, etc. Although his father DID go that far.

Rand Paul would curtail much of the surveillance state, but he doesn't propose to eliminate it altogether. (Nor could he. Congress would have to do that). He does favor reforming SS, medicare, Medicaid, etc. and probably favors eliminating federal aid to education but that's less than 10% of educational spending nation-wide. But he favors these cuts simply because we don't have the money. Printing the money won't work. We've seen how far that has gotten us. We're approaching a "lost decade" in terms of economic growth and the dollar is in the process of collapsing. It isn't even a question of when it will collapse. It's doing it now. Better to cut 10% now and avert a crisis than to have to cut 90% when the crisis actually hits. But asking politicians to sacrifice now for a better future is probably a hopeless cause. If Rand Paul wins, it will probably be because the crisis hits BEFORE 2016.

As for the other issue, does a welfare state promote a police state, I think it could be possible even without the national security issues. It depends on other policies. You can look to Sweden, but you can also look to Argentina. I wouldn't say that Argentina is exactly a police state, but that's probably due to the general incompetency of the government across the board.

To be safe, social welfare programs should be left to the states as they were prior to the New Deal. The same with criminal justice. We don't really need all these federal criminal statutes. The constitution only mentions treason, bribery, and counterfeiting.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The more generous welfare states tend, if anything, to be the more liberal (small l).

Calling it a false dichotomy is putting it politely.

 

[Valjean]

Pervasive corporate propaganda has produced a general distrust of "big government" in the US, but people rarely consider what the alternative: for-profit corporations running the country, would entail.

Unregulated corporations don't have a particularly good track record.

I see co-operative (government) management of the commons -- water, electricity, fire, police, defense, education, healthcare, &c -- as the most cost effective, transparent and responsive approach. Other goods and services can be left to the free market.

 

[aeebee50]

Limited government is better.

 

[Underseer]

Pervasive corporate propaganda has produced a general distrust of "big government" in the US[...]

Now that is simply not true. Americans only distrust "big government" when it comes to regulating rich people and large corporations. Everywhere else, Americans love big government. They love that we now incarcerate a higher percentage of our population than the Soviets ever did, and they cheered on the "tough on crime" political candidates who made this happen. They love to jam big government up women's uteri and into the bedrooms of all Americans. They want big government to tell us who we can marry and what kinds of plants we can smoke. The American right just loves big government, at least when it comes to how the government deals with the non-rich.