Across this great land called America you can hear the zombie-like cry of libertarians and Republicans everywhere:

“Less government… less government… mooooo…”

For quite some time, the philosophy that government is inherently evil, wasteful and contrary to the freedom of the democratic individual has been a cornerstone of the libertarian sensibilities of the “rugged individualist.”

This philosophy seems to be based on Lord Acton’s theory of power, which, to paraphrase, asserts that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Government will by nature be an oppressive, intrusive monolith that will threaten the individualism and freedoms of American citizens. Oh, Big Brother.

The private sector is where it’s at, small-government proponents will tell you.

You don’t need some mealy-mouthed, inefficient, bloated, red-tape immersed government agency interfering in your life.

Don’t expect the government to give you handouts! Go to work! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and put your nose to the grindstone.

I got your bootstraps right here.

My criticism of the classical libertarian approach to politics is that it doesn’t offer any solutions to social quandaries.

OK, so we don’t give poor people subsidies such as welfare.

How, I ask libertarians, do you suppose society helps the poor and indigent?

“….uhhh…they get off their lazy asses and get jobs! No handouts!”

With no government “intrusion” into private enterprise, how do you propose these “lazy” job applicants deal with racist, homophobic and sexist hiring practices?

“…uhhh…”

With no government “interference” in the life of the individual, how do we rectify the fact that a lack of earning power and a history of attempts to subjugate certain sections of our national community has led to a lack of adequate educational resources (which is becoming a larger and larger factor in an individual’s ability to get a job) among these groups that have been marginalized?

“…uhhhh…..less government… less government… greed is good… moooooo…..”

The fact of the matter is I support Lord Acton’s theory on power. The primary focus of any institution of power, be it a man, an international conglomerate or the U.S. government, is to remain in power.

But there is a naiveness to the libertarian argument of less government in that governmental institutions are not the only entities capable of being, at best, wastefully impotent and, at worst, maliciously corrupt.

We insist that we must limit the power and scope of government so that we as individuals will not be oppressed by a bureaucratic behemoth, as if with government off of our backs the gleaming world of private enterprise will make America and the world a truly wonderful place to live.

What keeps corporate monoliths from being any less oppressive than what we perceive government as being?

With everything from public transportation systems to schools(?!) being handed over to private enterprise, doesn’t anyone notice the fact that private enterprise can be as corruptible (if not more so) as the state?

We seem so determined to rid ourselves of the oppression of the state that we gleefully run into the arms of the private sector.

But what keeps corporate America from trampling on our rights?

Not a lot, if you ask Kathie Lee’s kids in Honduras pulling in a whopping 31 cents a day for Wal-Mart.

At the least, you can influence government through your vote.

You can’t influence a corporation unless you own stock, and considering that most social concerns surround the fact that there is an incredible imbalance of wealth in this nation, that doesn’t really solve the issue of disenfranchisement in America.

The argument that the individual can influence corporate America through his buying power doesn’t make much sense either, since again we’re discussing influence, power and wealth.

And with the prevalence of corporate mergers in recent American history (Bell-Atlantic-Nynex, Time-Warner), the option of the consumer to exercise his influence by “shopping around” is ominously coming to a close.

“Competition? We don’t need no stinking competition!”

“Less” government is a meaningless term tossed around that does nothing to address the fact that many are being denied access to the pursuit of the American dream of freedom and self-determination.

Am I wary of the potential abuse lying within the state?

You bet I am. I don’t want to be Harrison Bergeron living in an Orwellian fantasy any more than the Freemen do.

But I’m equally wary of a system that is more and more based on not initiative, but greed.

I’m wary of a system that has less and less accountability to the public, that operates without the consideration for the well-being of the individual.

Less government? Big government? Meaningless.

We’re wasting all this time fighting over how big or how small our government should be, when the real question is: how do we make our government more effective and responsive?

---

Tim Davis is a senior in Theatre Studies from Carlisle. He is the Opinion Page editor.