Battle4Liberty

Our founding fathers instinctively knew that governments usually create more problems than they solve. However, the modern liberal clings to the notion that an expanded government is usually good for society. Most conservative-liberal debates today are built on this clash of worldviews. History clearly favors the conservative position, but many conservatives fail to grasp this fact.

Let’s say that you run a jewelry store and someone recommends that you hire his buddy Rex as the night watchman. The only problem is that Rex just served 15 years for armed robbery. My guess is that you wouldn’t give serious consideration to making the hire. Liberals and conservatives would agree on this one.

Now, suppose the same person argues for an expanded government program like universal health care. You may discuss issues such as rising healthcare costs, the uninsured filling up the emergency rooms, and tort reform. These are important considerations, but the core assumption is usually overlooked: Why is more government presumed to be the solution to this or any social problem?

Rex may have served 15 years for committing a single armed robbery, but our government robs us incessantly and few government activities (outside of those specifically enumerated in the Constitution) have produced any measurable net benefits. From FDR’s prolonged Depression to LBJ’s Great Society to Obama’s massive “economic stimulus” and push toward complete control of the healthcare system, most government programs simply are not effective. The burden of proof here should be on the liberal.

The most common liberal argument for big government is the idea that government doesn’t have a profit motive. In the case of healthcare, we are told that the “public option” will be more efficient because the need for profit will be squeezed out of the system. Following this logic, the government should run everything from grocery stores to phone companies. If you think I’m stretching this a bit, consider Washington’s recent encroachment into the banking and auto industries. Some liberals have even called for nationalizing oil production.

This argument is easily refuted by pointing to the former USSR, Cuba, and even China before its recent shift in the direction of capitalism. The typical liberal response is that the Soviets were not wrong about socialism per se, but they just needed more refined government programs. Keep pressing them on this point and most will admit that their claims remain untested. They THINK a government takeover of the best healthcare system in the world will improve things, but they can’t point to a track record. They are left arguing for an upheaval of the most successful economy in the world with only conjecture for support. At this point the debate is over.

So when you get in your next debate with a liberal, watch out for the “big government is good” assumption at the outset. Ask him to present evidence that expanded government creates a better and more prosperous society. Many have accepted this notion without giving it much thought. Why be satisfied with winning the debate on a specific issue when you can attack the core of liberalism instead?