I just followed a link and wound up at Barbra Streisand’s website where there is a discussion of why big government is a good thing. Here is the link:

http://www.barbrastreisand.com/statements.html

Ms. Streisand cites FEMA as evidence, but also cites other reasons: schools, firefighters, a decent highway system, military, etc, etc,.

You will notice out to the left (margin that is) that I consider myself a conservative. So I would like to solicit liberal opinions regarding what I believe is a complete misunderstanding by Ms. Streisand (and most liberals) about what conservatives mean by “smaller government”. Although I am not as articulate as many, I’ll try:

No one would disagree that there are certain human endeavors which cannot be accomplished except by a pooling of resources. There are some things which a family (the smallest social unit) simply cannot do for themselves. They cannot protect against foreign invasion. They cannot maintain a fire department on call. Indeed, virtually all of the things that Ms. Streisand cites as those that “..is what the Federal Government does…” and that “…Americans both depend on and take for granted” are beyond the reach of the individual household and are good things.

But that is not the point.

When we “pool resources”, we are essentially taking our money and dumping it in a big pile in the middle so that, collectively, we can “buy services” (e.g., military, firemen) from others in a more efficient manner. As I understand and believe it, conservatives do not protest this mechanism. What conservatives protest is the remoteness of the pile. The further away, the more difficult it is to directly infuence the policies surrounding its expenditure. This leads to a sense of helplessness and an expectation (in the words of Ms. Streisand) that “This is what the government is supposed to do for you, the people”. The expectation then leads to more centralized services (to meet the expectation), more taxes and a remoter pile. A vicious downward spiral ultimately resulting in a powerless common man.

We should always first attempt to build the pile of money in the family. If that is not practical in the circumstance, then the town hall. In turn, if not practical, then the city, then state, then Washington – in that order.

Anything else is to presume that only the State can administer the daily life of the common man. In truth, exactly the opposite is true.