"Truth springs from argument amongst friends."
Join our lively philosophy discussion group at The Grapes in Bath, where curious minds come together to debate, analyze, and explore deep philosophical ideas. We welcome friendly, open-minded individuals who enjoy intelligent discussion and critical thinking.
Expect to justify, critique, and be challenged in a respectful, thought-provoking environment. Whether you're well-versed in philosophy or just starting, you're invited to engage with big ideas over a pint.
🔹 When? Regular meetups at The Grapes, Bath
🔹 Who? Open to anyone with a passion for meaningful discussion
🔹 Why? Because great philosophy happens over great conversation!
Rules for a rewarding discussion:
✅ Read relevant materials beforehand
✅ Familiarize yourself with basic philosophical concepts
✅ Respect others and engage in thoughtful debate
Come for the conversation, stay for the camaraderie. Join us at The Grapes and let’s think together!
Todays discussion is
How Big Should Governments Be
Details
Big Government or Small Government?
Whilst Elon Musk is slashing jobs and funding from the US budget on behalf of Trump, it may be a pertinent time to ask how big governments should be, and what role they should have in our lives. The subject area is vast and philosophies like anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism present political, social and economic arguments for less government. To keep the discussion within reasonable bounds it might be good for us to focus primarily on the economic case for and against less government spending and the direct consequences of that rather than alternative forms of government.
Here is a fun (and frightening) place to look at national debt: https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html
The Case For Less Government
Elon Musk is cutting spending through his DOGE department. The US budget is currently running at a deficit of nearly $2 trillion a year. According to Ray Dalio, author of “How Countries Go Broke” (and quite a clever hedge fund manager), the US is in danger of financial collapse. This is the prima facie case against spending: to save money for the taxpayer. Here’s a primer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV_beNSQ4_U
But what about the political consequences and fallout, and the deeper arguments that might have led Trump and his government to this point? Typically the right has given other reasons for cutting government:
- Government inherently infringes upon individual liberty. Proponents believe individuals should have absolute freedom to make their own choices, engage in voluntary transactions, and manage their own affairs without state interference.
- Free Market Efficiency suggests that supply and demand, driven by individual self-interest, will lead to optimal outcomes. As described by Hyek in his book The Road to Serfdom, typically governments are inefficient in their allocation of resources. Hyek was a proponent of the free market to govern price control and allocate resources.
- Some argue that a lack of government would foster greater innovation and progress. They believe that individuals and private organizations, free from bureaucratic constraints, would be more likely to develop new solutions to problems.
Here are some further arguments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxe5GcMH5yA
The Case Against Cuts
The main argument against cuts might be that Trump is forcing a political agenda to reduce opposition to his own power by cutting government checks and balances. Some have accused him of paying his own supporters or creating opportunities for them by cutting government functions and thus allowing private enterprise to exploit the vacuum left.
Trump is also potentially preparing the ground for tax cuts for the wealthy. This is evidenced by the views of his silicon valley supporters such as Peter Thiel who has an open agenda of reducing government in order to create an environment of lower taxes (and such proponents would argue of course that wealth creation should be rewarded).
Here are some well-reasoned arguments for big government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qq84IhZxRM
According to research by Tim Besley of the LSE: “For a market economy to flourish, government needs to be effective and constrained but it need not be small. Casual empiricism should make this claim self-evident. Among the richest economies in the world are the Nordics (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) which seem to thrive (on a wide range of metrics) in spite of their apparent preference for high taxes and public spending. The twentieth century saw governments in advanced countries increase their tax take in GDP from around 10% to 40% while living standards continued to expand. There is no paradox to explain. Countries which have large governments, measured by share of taxes or spending, also by-and-large have effective governments. So the real focus should be on why this happens in some places and not others – focusing on government size is not only a distraction, it diverts focus from what matters.” (https://www.lse.ac.uk/economics/Assets/Documents/personal-pages/tim-besley/working-papers/debating-the-size-of-government.pdf)
QUESTIONS
Let’s start with these:
Q: What might the Trump government be up to in cutting budgets? Is there a hidden agenda, or simply to save money?
Q: Is it simply the case that liberal governments got too generous, and have spent profligately without regard to value for money?
Q: Is it sensible to “take a chainsaw” to government spending? Is this simply poor management? For example, some employees have been let go, only for it to be realised that they are vital to a function of safety and must be rehired.
Q: Will the US lose out if it changes its role in world affairs by cutting spending and becomes a smaller influence on other countries? For example, it has cut the budgets of all its intelligence operations, operations which must surely exert soft power by subtly directing where the rest of the “free” world detects threats.
Q: Is public debt at unsustainable levels? Should we be concerned about what sort of debt we leave for our children to pay?
