The smaller our government, the better for us all

We don’t endorse political candidates, primarily because we seldom see any who reflect our core values of limited government.

Those seeking office in Tuesday’s primaries across the state are mostly well-intentioned people. Their hearts are in the right place, but we can’t identify even one we could recommend whose intentions are to make government smaller and individual responsibilities greater.

We like to ask candidates, “What is the purpose of government?” The answers always prove disappointing.

Most answers are along the lines of “Government should help people,” or “Government should protect people.”

Again, those candidates are not evil. They are mostly trying to be good community servants. But they are missing the point of government, at least the kind of government we embrace.

The purpose of government, according to our Founding Fathers, is simply to “secure the blessings of liberty” for everyone.

We don’t want government to “help” us, we want government to make sure we can help ourselves.

We don’t want government to “protect” us, we want government to make sure we can protect ourselves.

Even the libertarians among us disagree on how best government can accomplish its mission. But those who support the concept of limited government almost all agree government should not be expected to entertain us or “give” us anything. That’s primarily because government has no money except for what it takes from those it’s supposed to represent.

There are plenty of people, maybe even a majority — Democrats and Republicans are equally responsibly — who think government can create a better place to live by pooling everyone’s resources.

Our problem with that idea — socialism — is that not everyone wants public golf courses or even public schools, but everyone is forced, through taxation, to fund those types of entities.

Public transportation may seem like a good way to “help” people, but most small-town residents don’t need it. While many might volunteer to fund public transportation, many others are struggling to pay for their government-mandated car insurance.

And how would you feel if you owned a taxi service and you were forced, through taxation, to fund your competition?

Of course there are plenty of people who want government to provide services and even entertainment.

For some, the idea of having government, or someone, take care of them is comforting.

Understood.

Unfortunately, government isn’t very good at taking care of us — our streets are bumpy, they flood every time we see significant rainfall, too many of our publicly educated children cannot read, and the list goes on.

And yet, government seems to want to take on more responsibilities, even weighing in routinely on morality issues.

Government incompetence always grows with the size of government.

At least that’s how we see it, and that’s why we don’t endorse candidates who want to grow government, which is pretty much all of them.

We hope you’ll vote — but vote for those who want to grow government the least, and then remind them regularly that their responsibility is to secure liberty for us all.

Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the Clovis News Journal’s editorial board, which consists of Publisher Rob Langrell and Editor David Stevens.