Reclaiming Limited Government

Those of us who actually believe in the principle of limited government need to reclaim it from those who have redefined it to mean 'small government'...especially those who seem to want a small government that doesn't stay within its proper limits.

Limited government is a legitimate principle. It refers to a government that respects human rights and the rule of law...a system in which nobody is above the law. A limited government protects and enhances the freedom of citizens in practical ways. It has limited abilities to jail and coerce people, with short maximum sentences, actual speedy trails, courts where everyone is represented fairly (regardless of factors like income), and a judiciary that is merciful and accountable. Where government is limited, people are free and happy.

But here is the rub: in these ways, places like Denmark and Sweden have very limited government. When you consider their criminal justice systems, in particular, their governments seem far more limited than ours in the U.S. Still, about half of their national income is devoted to government functions, including healthcare, education and social services. On the other hand, Syria's government only cost 10% of GDP in 2011, but they maintained an oppressive police state. Is that what anyone means by limited government? Of course not. Police states can be quite affordable, in financial terms. Good government can be limited, expensive and worth the cost. When people talk about the principle of limited government, we are generally talking about government that respects the rights and freedoms of citizens. We are not talking about the % of GDP that is spent on governance functions. A limited government can easily, and without contradiction, also be large. And a government that does not respect its appropriate limits can be small.

Of course, having a well-run, limited, large government can have disastrous unintended consequences. You might end up with the happiest people on earth, which makes you a target for heinous exploitation like this:

The Barn

“So Cleo and Dean, what do you think is in that barn over there?” asked Phil.

“Well,” replied Cleo, “the purpose of a barn is to contain things related to a farm. And since the land in this region is most suited to pig farming, we can conclude that there are pigs in it.”

Dean looked at Cleo like she was an idiot, then said, “Look, that’s an ok guess, but you can’t possibly know that. The only way to know what is in the barn is if it is revealed to us.”

So Phil asked, “Do you mean we should go and look, to see what is in the barn? Or does ‘revealed’ mean something other than ‘being made visible.’ If it just means we should go and look, then I don’t see a problem with the idea."

Dean looked afflicted. “Of course not! Do you think you can trust your own eyes? We’ll have to refer to the Scriptures, or the authority of the Church, to find out what is in the barn. I’d never trust my own eyes, when they can so easily deceive us...especially in the dimness of a barn, and especially when dealing with something so wondrous as God’s Creation.”

Cleo and Phil raised their eyebrows. Then Phil said, “Well, it looks like Dean is right about not being able to tell what is in the barn. And Cleo, you’re obviously an idiot. Here’s my recommendation: since we don’t know what is in the barn, let’s assume there is nothing there. That’s the safest assumption. Until someone can prove to me that there is something in there, we have to assume there is nothing there. That way, we don’t have to defend a proposition or believe anything at all.”

Cleo and Dean looked at Phil like he was an idiot. Cleo said, “Saying nothing is there is a proposition just like any other. You’re making a claim about what is there. If you wanted to say that, you’d have to make a case just like anyone else.”

Then, Phil said, “Oh, yeah. Just kidding. It is obvious that there are pigs in the barn. Flying pigs. Good point, Cleo.”

Cleo and Dean thought Phil was probably being sarcastic, but they weren’t sure. Phil wasn’t entirely sure either. He felt like he was evading some invisible censors, but shook away the sensation and told himself he was being Socratic. Then, Phil said, “Okay Cleo, let’s go look in the barn and see if you are right. But if it turns out that you were right, it is as much a matter of luck as reason. We’d have to see you accurately predict the contents of a lot more barns before I began to trust your method. But if we only have this one barn, there really isn’t much to do but go and look.”

The two headed toward the barn, and Dean followed along at a safe distance. They reached it, and began to circumambulate it, looking for the entrance. They circled it twice and found no door.

“Well then,” said Cleo. “Pigs it is.”

Phil sat scratching his chin, and said at last, “We just don’t know what is in the barn. But what kind of barn has no entrance? It seems pretty clear that we aren’t just dealing with some normal pig barn.”

Just then, Dean came rushing up to them. “I just heard a whispering in my ear, a clear strange voice from somewhere else. He said he was the author of this story, and that the barn is part of an allegory about God, and that we are designed to show that basic mistakes are frequently made when talking about God that no one would make when talking about the inside of a barn. As proof, he said we should look at our names: Cleo, you are advancing an argument similar to Cleanthes’ argument in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume. Phil, you are a bit like Philo. And I am a bit like Demea.”

Cleo and Phil scoffed. “That hardly counts as evidence,” they said in unison.

“We are modern people,” said Cleo.

“Yes,” said Phil. “We have electric lights and deodorant now. We are far beyond such fancies.”

“Nope, definitely pigs,” said Cleo.

Phil replied, “That’s ridiculous! This is clearly not a normal barn. Perhaps, by analogy, you might say that something piglike might be inside of it. But I bet that it is piglike only in the sense that it is in a barn, and pigs are sometimes in barns. So at least they have that being-in-a-barn-ness in common. Have you read Being-in-a-barn and Nothingness? You can’t possibly understand what is in the barn, unless you have read it.”

Dean sniffed his armpits, and said, “You’re probably right about me, at least. What a silly idea, that we are characters in a story! The church would never sanction this. Must’ve been the sausage I had for dinner.”

“Good for you,” Phil said. “Down that road lies madness.”

The three circled the barn one more time, then headed back to work.