Tue 30 Sep 2008
What is it good for?
Posted by Erin under Pensees
[3] Comments
What is government for? One (probably) positive outcome of the dragged-out-to-the-point-of-utter-numbness political campaigning is that it has caused me to stop and think through (a bit) what I actually believe the role of government to be. I have gut reactions to certain issues and I can think through my arguments on those issues, but I’ve not carefully considered the underlying political beliefs before. An interesting article on the morals of politics also contributed to this line of thought. So here’s a tentative sketch.
1. The primary purpose of democratic/republic government is to protect the freedom of its people to live their lives unmolested: that includes citizens and residents without the rights of full citizenship, such as children, legal immigrants, and those who are incapacitated by law or circumstance (prisoners, the mentally ill).
This means governmental provisions to protect us from external threats. (Not necessarily a standing army– diplomacy, drafts, readiness to stand firm when necessary.)
It also means protection within, when acting on our own freedoms causes harm or unnecessarily restricts the freedom of others. So basic policing and a criminal justice system are necessary, as are laws forbidding property crimes, violence, fraud, and some environmental damage. No consequence of lawbreaking should permanently rescind the right to life, or the right to vote.
Freedom and justice, the two biggies.
2. The government is the best vehicle for collective action by the people of the nation. When a majority of people or their elected representatives decide that we value something and want to undertake a project to express that value, the govt. and taxation is the way to go. For example, we value having a reliable network of highways. A perfect project for the government to build and maintain. Other examples– funding for medical research, aid money and intervention in poor countries in Africa. The caveat to this function of government is that it should not enact any projects or plans that conflict with role #1. Thus the Japanese-American internment camps of WWII were wrong, because they caused harm and restricted the freedom of people the govt was supposed to protect, even though a many leaders (including the president) were in favor of it. The government should not neglect its duty to protect the freedom of anyone, regardless of how risky one appears to the general population, unless that person has broken the law.
There is great value in having the government (local, state, federal) initiate these types of projects at the behest of the people. Why? Because no institution is better positioned to justly administer the programs and funding for an entire community, state, or nation. I believe that every child in this country should get enough to eat, and I am willing to pitch in to make that happen. Could I personally make sure that each child gets a lunch? No. Could my church? No. How about the Gates Foundation? Most likely not. But because of the government, every single poor child in public school is guaranteed at least one balanced meal a day.
Things the government should not do:
1. Protect people from themselves. This means that most “victimless” crimes should be decriminalized, including drug use. However, they should probably be regulated, to better protect the rest of citizens from their ill effects. Laws protecting us from ourselves should only be enacted when the cost to society for someone’s idiocy becomes too high to bear, and that step should be taken carefully at best.
2. Change or enforce cultural values against the will of the majority. I don’t really know why the government is in the business of officially recognizing marriages and divorces. Why should it care? Births, deaths, and parentage/guardianship, yes. The rest, not so much. If the country is tending more and more toward reckless spending and greed, so be it. If the movies and music are getting trashier and trashier, oh well. These are issues for families, churches, and other grass-roots organizations (if these groups are doing what they ought, they should be able to build a majority, right?). The exception to this rule is when cultural values are infringing on the safety and freedom of some people in the country; such a situation resulted in the Civil Rights Act.
A few corollary thoughts:
1. It’s a Republic. So the role of our elected leaders is not exactly to enact the will of the people. It is to keep track of what the people care about, and do the research and hard work and rigorous thinking and careful compromising that the people don’t have time or inclination to do, and propose action accordingly. Let’s say I think the financial bailout idea stinks (I do) and I call my representative and tell him so (I didn’t, too lazy). His job is not to vote against it. Why not? Because I don’t know enough about how the economy works to say what the right course of action is. His job is to find out how the economy works, thoroughly investigate the proposed action as well as other alternatives, weigh their various costs, risks, and impacts, figure out what will best allow me to to keep living my free unmolested life, and vote for that, and then let me know what he did and how he took my concerns into account. Evidence-based decision-making, dudes! No knee-jerk reactions, deciding from the gut, or mindlessly parroting the electorate.
2. No religion promoted by the government. Elected officials who are religious can be open about how their religion affects their decision making. But no laws, policies, or projects should ever be enacted whose only basis is religious, or whose intended outcomes are primarily religious. Not even if I personally agree with the religious goals or motivations. Why? Because I don’t want anyone telling me I have to wear a headscarf in public or pray in tongues at the baseball game. And I don’t want anyone telling Jews, Buddhists, and Atheists that their children only qualify for the school lunch program if they pray to Jesus before meals. I love Jesus and wish more people did, but faith is an invitation and not a precondition for the benefits of citizenship.
Does your summary of the article end (and your opinions resume) at the “A few corollary thoughts” heading?
Some comments:
I like that “victimless” is in quotes. That’s necessary because it’s always unclear to what extent a particular action is indeed victimless. Drug use, for example, does not only affect the person taking the drugs. It can have a huge (and detrimental) effect on the children of the drug-taker, on the victims of the crimes undertaken to support the drug habit, and on the rest of society which has to foot the bill for the attendant medical expenses. Notice, all these points apply equally well to cigarette, alcohol, and hard drug use, some of which are currently legal for some people, and some of which are illegal for all.
I think point 2 of what govt should not do, and your first corollary thought are contradictory. All laws are moral statements. The economic bailout has huge moral implications. People on both sides of the issue cite moral reasons for their support or opposition to it. Your first corollary though suggests that politicians should do the research and “do the right thing” for the people, even if the people don’t necessarily agree. But that could result in an attempt to change cultural values against the will of the people.
Dr. G–
Clarification– the sketch is of my thoughts, not a summary of the linked article.
Response to your comments: I agree with you that “victimless” is a fuzzy determination, which is why I included the caveat that, if the cost to society does in fact become too high, laws may be necessary. But considering your example about the children affected by drug-using parents, there may be other laws that fit better with the mission of government that can protect them. For example, perhaps the existinglaws governing abuse and neglect would be sufficient to protect or rescue children. As for drug-associated crime, I suspect crimes would drop if drugs were regulated because business competetion would no longer include illegal black market tactics such as intimidation and theft.
Point 2– Okay, let me revise: the only important morals that the government needs to uphold and enforce, apart from a project instigated by the majority, are freedom and basic justice, as outlined in point one. All government action should be measured first by those two plumblines. On that basis, the main concern of government in considering a financial bailout is– what action is necessary to preserve the safety, freedom,and justice of the people? In this case, there may be no real impetus in the basic function of government to sign into law a bailout. However, there may be grounds for a collective project by the American people to do so. In any of these tax-funded projects, there is room for debate and moral justifications and so on, and it may be that there is not a clear majority. We have to take the time to talk it out and figure it out.
Let’s say there’s a case where there is a majority, but it is just wrong. That is where we get to your concern that those who govern end up imposing morals on the people. First of all, a representative must first subject every opinion to the guiding principles and if an opinion does not promote freedom and justice, it’s automatically out. If that is not the case, it is his or her job to discern the moral heart of the issue being raised by the people and respond to that, rather than the solution per se. So in any decision about a bailout, I would expect my representative to fully consider and incorporate the public’s desire to not to use public money to safeguard the people who messed everything up. However, the representative may need to come back and say, “I know that is your desire, but there is no way to avoid a safety net for the irresponsible people without also seriously damaging you.”
. . . interesting . . we must get together sometime to discuss further.