long-term government practice that is seen as good
I've never heard of one, asides from the practices that define government itself (laws, courts, police, voting, congress etc), but these are more necessary than good.
I agree, it's a good practice, intended to prevent government from assuming a whole bunch of bad practices that (unopposed) it tends to assume. But to take your point to the extreme, democracy, courts, etc are also therefore not necessary functions of government.
I'd argue that they are necessary components of a good government. All the best parts of government limit the scope of government .. that says something.
So take voting. Just saying 'the vote' is way too simplistic. Allowing women to vote? Good, not obsolete. Allowing minorities to vote? Good, not obsolete. Electoral college method? Facilitates sinister behaviour, obsolete. Districting rules that allow for relatively easy gerrymandering? Obsolete, and definitively sinister. Promotional materials encouraging people to exercise their rights by voting? Good, not obsolete.
All the best parts of government limit the scope of government .. that says something.
No it doesn't. That's an overly simplistic slogan. Provision of universal healthcare is a clear and topical example.
Provision of universal healthcare is a clear and topical example.
Come on, you know that's political and there are arguments on both sides. For the record, I don't agree with you here.
I have no problem being simplistic, as long as I'm right. That being said, I take your criticism, and will rephrase part of what I said ..
Necessary components of government (such as many you mentioned) are the parts which define how the government works. These parts didn't start out perfect, and perfecting them is a good thing (i.e. women and minority voting).
Everything in government is political. Western democracy is a decent form of government, but it's not the best - benevolent dictatorship is the best; it just doesn't have checks against it turning non-benevolent.
The problem is where do you draw the line, because it has to be drawn somewhere. You claim that limiting the government's scope is good in all cases, yet this is clearly not true - if we were to take arrest powers away from police for example, society as a whole would suffer.
Limiting scope can be argued all the way down to anarchy, which is clearly not supportable at anything beyond the size of a small conclave.
I have no problem being simplistic, as long as I'm right.
The truth has never been simple in politics, and anyone who maintains that it is, is simply displaying contempt (open or otherwise) for your intellect. As a result, we can't rely on simplistic solutions for politics, and have to be cautious of things that try to make it one-size-fits-all.
