The British (notoriously leftist) publication Private Eye published this comic in a recent issue:
It requires a special kind of skill to misunderstand words and terminology this badly (reminds me of how far-leftists routinely misinterpret and misunderstand what "color blindness" refers to, when dealing with social situations between people).
Classical Liberalism, and thus also American Conservatism, as well as several other political traditions usually call for "small government" as opposed to "big government". It shouldn't be necessary to explain what's meant with those terms, but apparently it is.
"Small government" does not refer to the number of representatives. The "size" of a government in this context refers to how much power and control the government has and exerts on citizens.
In other words, it's talking about the "libertarian vs. totalitarian" axis: A "small" government is libertarian because it exerts very little power and control over the citizens, only dealing with a small amount of issues, while a "big" government exerts a very large amount of power and control over the citizens, meddling with lots and lots of things, making laws and imposing restrictions on lots and lots of things, and overall being overly controlling of the lives of citizens.
Calling for a "small government" is calling to minimize how much the government controls society. Less laws, less restrictions, less ordinances, less oversight, less overreach. In other words, maximal freedom of the citizens.
In contrast, a "big government" is one that imposes lots of laws, lots of restrictions, lots of ordinances, and engages in a lot of oversight and control of people and what they do. In other words, citizen freedoms are minimized.
It has nothing to do with how many parliamentary representatives there are in the government.
Comments
Post a Comment