Anyone who has ever turned on TV's Fox News or one of its radio affiliates has had their ear duly bent by rants against "big government" by one of its tongue-whipping pundits.

They use the term interchangably with "liberal" and "socialistic" to skewer any piece of congressional legislation, debated or enacted into law, that does not serve the financial interests of the domestic and global corporate structure of which they are an indispensable media lynchpin.

But "big" is a word the Foxsters never utter in the same sentence with "business," especially big corporate business; for them, only government deserves the adjective.

When President Ronald Reagan pronounced several decades ago, "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem," he set forth what was effectively a quasi-Orwellian manifesto that has been the ideological hue and cry ever since of business deregulation zealots. It is ironic to note that while large corporations have subsequently been allowed much more latitude in their pursuit of profits, small businesses have generally not been.

Note that Reagan omitted the qualifier "big" from his indictment of government. Thus, his less discriminating political listeners undoubtedly interpreted, more or less unconsciously, that all government, big or small, is counterproductive and, at best, should be absolutely minimal for assuring social order. Sometimes, the more educated among them are disposed to quoting an ancient Chinese sage that, "That government which governs least is best."

The problem with all forms of simplistic and reductionistic thinking is that they typically fail to register and consider complexity. It feels good to have one's belief(s) summed up by an aphorism or doctrinal edict, such as Reagan's. It relieves the believer of the need to ponder the subject more broadly and deeply. This is the mind-set of the anti-(big)governmenters.

They are seldom willing -- and one presumes, able -- to discuss just how small government should be, and what and what it shouldn't be involved in governing and regulating. Most will agree that it should be the agent of law and order, protecting the public against criminal acts. But the source of financing local police forces and the need for federal law enforcement agencies is, of course, where the issues become sticky for the government minimalists, because they seem to chafe against the very idea of paying taxes.

No sane person with democratic values desires a heavy-handed, intrusive governement, local or national. Be that as it may, Theodore Roosevelt, 26th president of the United States, would have found the current media-churned anti-government sentiment puzzling and, perhaps, disturbing. His stated belief on the subject was that government necessarily had to expand in structure and function proportionately with the growth of the nation.

Roosevelt, of course, was an ardent outdoorsman and conservationist who expanded the National Parks system, a federal program of wildlife conservation admired worldwide and enjoyed by millions annually.

Imagine the loss to the American and world public if private interests had been left unchecked by federal law to exploit those magnificent wilderness areas for their own profits.

Until a spiritually based Utopia on Earth is established (which doesn't likely seem soon), the reality must be acknowledged that the social makeshift called "government" will always be required to ensure that civil society does not collapse back into the "law of the jungle." What the nature of government will be, authoritarian or democratic, relatively just or unjust, equitable or inequitable, ultimately depends on all of us, collectively.

As for government's size, it needs to be as big as contingencies call for. If only we had that Chinese sage around now to advise us on that.

Former Hays resident A. Wayne Senzee is a freelance writer residing in Salina and co-author of two books, "Toward A New Brain: Evolution and the Human Brain" and "More Ways To Use Your Head" (both with Stuart Litvak).