Big State - yay or nay

[egb_hibs]

Some argue that political battlelines of the coming years will not be drawn around traditional left and right positions, but between those who favour state based solutions to socio-political questions, and those who favour a reduced role for the state and a larger role for individuals and institutions.

What side are you on and why?

 

[Smurf]

Much less of a state role. I don't think big state attempting to do everything is in any way a good thing. Bad for the country and the individual.

And in the main the state isn't very good at it and is inefficient. Not only that we can't afford it.

We need less government and folk to take more personal responsibility.

 

[Stirlinghibee]

Big state for - Science and Defence

Little state for - Morality, Civil Liberties, Foreign policy and Religion

With everything else somewhere inbetween.

 

[Briant]

Big state for - Science and Defence

Little state for - Morality, Civil Liberties, Foreign policy and Religion

With everything else somewhere inbetween.

Agree with that mostly.


For poor wee people who can't help themselves the state should be there if needed.


For rich fat b@st@rds that help themselves to our dosh the state should be there to stop them.



The state should be a form of support, not legislation.


Where, when and who it supports is the question then I guess.

 

[Green Sleeves]

Would like to see the current state significantly reduced in size. From sixty million people to five million people. :rascal:

That aside, within the framework of a future Scottish state, I'd hope to see a process initiated that moves towards self-governing local communities.

In policy areas such as housing, education, local policing, leisure and culture, licensing laws, planning regulations, parks and monuments, sport, etc, a version of the West Lothian Question could be applied. E.g. why should politicans/people living in Corstorphine have any say on decisions that only/predominantly affect people living in Portobello?

Obviously there would need to be economic and social areas - such as defense, health, energy polices, transport network, currency/finance, immigration - where the incorporating state would have an important, albeit politically reduced, co-ordinating role.

In theory, political states that are as decentralised as possible make for happier places to live in. Less state interference in the life and liberty of the citizens. It is a general rule of politics that the bigger the state (in terms of enclosed population/political powers) then the less democratic, less transparent, and more bureaucratic/corrupt that particular state will become.

Seems like a no brainer ... unless you're a poor wee soul, scared out yer wits by everything around you, who prefers Big Brother control freaks running your life while you hide away in the safety and isolation of your own home drinking/drugging/playing computer games/watching TV.

 

[Dunc89]

I didn't vote in the poll as none of the options appealed; I don't see it as black and white as the poll implies or as the rhetoric of the thread tital suggests, so I agree with Stirlinghibee in that in some quarters, public ownership is vital. The ideal is public ownership in realms such as health, welfare, education, and vital services such as energy, transport, and communications, yet without having an overbearing centralised state which becomes bogged down in bureaucracy and is ultimately harmful to the areas which it controls. A government itself mustn't be "big state" in terms of being able to blindly act as it sees fit - a greater system of checks and balances should be in place, cemented by a written constitution. This is where the old system has to go out the window, with the Lords etc.

More in terms of ideology, though, IMO it's never a case of "big state" or "small state" in reality. If control over sectors is taken away from public ownership or the 'state' with an eye to creating a more fluent and 'free' society in which the individual can thrive, rather than this becoming the case what happens is that the role the 'state' played is taken over by independent actors; business and private ownership. What may start out as the 'free market ideal' with competition etc can easily turn into monopoly and ultimately dictatorship of wealth. This can be as restrictive to the individual as any govt can be, if not moreso given that there is more flexibility allowed to a private comandeer of capital given the nature of the role than a govt, which can far easily be held to account. So, though one can take "small state" as the preferred route, the possibility of this becoming an unchecked "big state" though under a different guise is more than a pipe dream.

 

[Nielmartinrocks]

All essential services, police, fire brigade, health service,welfare services, along with water, gas and electricity should be state owned and run.

 

[wee 162]

The social and physical infrastructure of the state should be owned and run by the people and for the people.

 

[Nielmartinrocks]

The social and physical infrastructure of the state should be owned and run by the people and for the people.

Hear hear

 

[egb_hibs]

The social and physical infrastructure of the state should be owned and run by the people and for the people.

But that always requires 'representatives of the people' to actually do that on a practical level, and then we end up with the attributes associated with statism.

I too believe the people need to be much more involved in running things, but i believe that requires a non statist structure. I also think it needs to happen soon to reinforce civil society before it completely decomposes into a collection of atomised individuals.

Without wanting to be too starry eyed about it, i shall remember the 'big freeze' fondly for the way everyone mucked in when the council services didn't show up.

I got to know elderly neighbours better as I started going for their messages and checking if they needed snow and ice cleared. I remember passing a group of neighbours just hanging around outside their house at the bottom of a hill, waiting for cars to come along so they could push them up the slope. People helping me when my car got stuck, me helping people when there's got stuck. Helping old dears navigate the ice, people rushing to help me when I went face first...

I'm not overromanticising - this was no substitute for proper council clearing of the roads. But I sensed in people a sense of wellbeing resulting from the communalism that became required; I certainly felt it. There's a need for a mix, but people definitely need to become participants in civil society more than is the case today. Otherwise we are slipping into a soft authoritarianism where we give up our autonomy rather than have it seized from us.