R: Cut the Red Tape

This week’s debate centers around a key tension in conservatism in the United States. Libertarianism and conservatism are distinct, but they are often conflated in the American context because liberty plays an important role in our tradition. Politics is about finding the right relationship between the individual, the community, and the state with the common good in mind. To “cut red tape” means to reduce bureaucratic obstacles to action. Less red tape means less regulation.

Those in the affirmative believe that fewer obstacles and less government involvement, especially in business, are better for our society. The policymakers and bureaucrats who craft and enforce these policies have the wrong incentives. Instead of protecting everyday Americans, these rules only serve to slow down businesses and drive costs up, ultimately harming consumers. Likewise, building and zoning codes have led to the proliferation of hideous suburban sprawl and atrocious cityscapes. Communities no longer seem to be built for people. Free enterprise has been tremendously successful in America. Perhaps we ought to remember what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said: “Amid all the vituperation, it has been forgotten that the defects of capitalism represent the basic flaws of human nature…”

Those in the negative understand that more government doesn’t necessarily mean more problems. It is businessmen and corporations that cannot be trusted to care for normal people. Their primary motivation is profit. Left to their own devices, firms would pursue only their advantage, resulting in products that harm consumers’ health, shoddy housing offered to unsuspecting tenants, and an increase in pollutants in the environment. A truly free-market system would wreak havoc on the environment, our nation, and most importantly, our health. Some areas have zoning regulations that are not conducive to life in common. However, reform is always an option. In this debate, the negative can defend increased regulation, the status quo, or a reform of the status quo.

Is increased or decreased regulation better for America today? Does the approach we should take today differ from what was called for forty years ago? To what extent should conservatives prefer small government to big government?