I don't think I've said that conservatives believe there should be no government. There's another word for people who believe that. I do believe that advocating smaller government, which is I think a conservative principle, is equivalent to advocating government that has less power in general--less money, less manpower, less access to resources--and is thus less able to help those who need it.
I do conflate social justice with government action, because I don't believe that everyone is as good a person as you are. Some people will try to fix social issues because they want to. Some people will never try to fix social issues because they don't care. And in between, I think, lie the majority of people, who will contribute to fixing social issues if the issues are brought to their attention and a way is organised for their contribution to be made useful. And that, to me, is where government comes in. Charitable organisations can do that for specific issues, but why have lots of different bodies (some of which seem to be prone to the idea that they ought to be making a profit) to address these problems when we should be able to do it with one organisation of which the profit consists (or should consist) in the fact that it exists?
I take your point that government actions have been less flexible and efficient than they could or should be. I don't think it's a problem with the institution itself, just with the way it's been implemented. Certainly as our information-handling abilities grow it should be possible to make a more responsive apparatus for government...but that does not necessarily equate with "smaller." On the contrary, in fact.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 03:29 am (UTC)I do conflate social justice with government action, because I don't believe that everyone is as good a person as you are. Some people will try to fix social issues because they want to. Some people will never try to fix social issues because they don't care. And in between, I think, lie the majority of people, who will contribute to fixing social issues if the issues are brought to their attention and a way is organised for their contribution to be made useful. And that, to me, is where government comes in. Charitable organisations can do that for specific issues, but why have lots of different bodies (some of which seem to be prone to the idea that they ought to be making a profit) to address these problems when we should be able to do it with one organisation of which the profit consists (or should consist) in the fact that it exists?
I take your point that government actions have been less flexible and efficient than they could or should be. I don't think it's a problem with the institution itself, just with the way it's been implemented. Certainly as our information-handling abilities grow it should be possible to make a more responsive apparatus for government...but that does not necessarily equate with "smaller." On the contrary, in fact.