The Proper Role of Government

[Empty Hands]

So I've seen it said in many places, most recently the "Future of Scientific Research" thread, that the government should be doing some things but not others. Which things go in which category differ on the person.

So two questions:

1) What things, broadly speaking, should the government be doing and what shouldn't they be doing?

2) Much more importantly, what is the justification for whether or not government should be involved in anything in particular? If it's based on a particular philosophy or ideology, then why are the views of that belief system justified? Don't say "the Constitution" either, because the document should be able to be rationally justified, not treated as Divine Revelation.

 

[WC_lun]

My personal opinion is government is responsible for creting and running a framework for those things we cannot afford individually. For instance, police service. Very few of us can afford our own police officer, but together we can afford a police force...well usually.

I also believe that as a society taking advantage of said services from the government, government is responsible for keeping the least among us from falling through the cracks and costing our society more.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Don't say "the Constitution" either, because the document should be able to be rationally justified, not treated as Divine Revelation.

Ah, ah, ah!

By saying this, you close off a legitimate debate.

Governments have a basis, and no, they do not have to be rationally justified. That would be a myth easily shattered by the first strongman dictator with an army. Rationally justify my M16 bayonet up your jaxie, mate, they would seem to say.

Our nation is, as they say, a nation of laws and not of men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

The first pledge all elected officials take, as well as those who serve our country in the armed services is an oath to one thing and one thing only - the US Constitution.

It is not 'divine revelation' but it is the core and basis for our system of government and for our laws.

If we cannot discuss it, then the topic is moot. You're essentially saying "Discuss the proper role of government, but only if you agree that the Constitution is crap." Well, it isn't. So if I can't discuss it, then we can't have a discussion about the proper role of government.

 

[Empty Hands]

If we cannot discuss it, then the topic is moot. You're essentially saying "Discuss the proper role of government, but only if you agree that the Constitution is crap." Well, it isn't. So if I can't discuss it, then we can't have a discussion about the proper role of government.

No, that's not what I'm saying, I happen to think the Constitution is an excellent document and basis for our government. However, if I ask you to justify why government should do one thing but not another and your answer is "that's what's in the Constitution", then you have effectively ended debate with an Appeal to Authority. A similar answer would be "God wanted it that way." For that matter, the Framers had very clear justifications and philosophies as to what went into the Constitution, what did not, and why.

Governments do not have to be rationally justified, as you point out. However, what I am asking about here are philosophical beliefs - what you believe should be the system. Those should be able to be rationally justified, otherwise your beliefs are arbitrary. People can believe any arbitrary thing they want, but that doesn't then mean it should be taken seriously. If you say you believe in something, you should be able to point out why.

 

[Empty Hands]

To my anonymous rep ding person: get with the spirit of things dude, I'm trying something here. Maybe you like the Reps vs. Dems food fight overwhelming the study, but plenty of others have said they want something better. Help make something better.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

To my anonymous rep ding person: get with the spirit of things dude, I'm trying something here. Maybe you like the Reps vs. Dems food fight overwhelming the study, but plenty of others have said they want something better. Help make something better.

um I am lost... what are you talking about?
nevermind I am just slow... what the heck did you say that was negative? I may not agree with you, but I dont see anything you said in this thread that would merit any rep to any degree wierd...

 

[Empty Hands]

um I am lost... what are you talking about?
nevermind I am just slow... what the heck did you say that was negative? I may not agree with you, but I dont see anything you said in this thread that would merit any rep to any degree wierd...

Beats me. I seem to have an admirer, although many others seem to get the same thing.

 

[Steve]

I don't get it, EH. This is a great thread, and I'm interested to hear what other people have to offer.

Broadly, I'll say that I think it's appropriate and reasonable for government to build and maintain public spaces and infrastructure. Roads and highways, for example.

Keeping the peace, creating, instituting and enforcing laws, as well as meting out punishment.

Protecting our borders and matters of national security.

I guess that's a pretty good start. There are other things that I believe could be done privately OR publicly, but that should be done. And often, these things fall to government by default. But I'll wait on getting more specific until other people have weighed in.

 

[billc]

But government at what level? We have a federal government and state governments as well as local governments. The role of the federal government is more tightly defined in the constitution than that of the states, what about that?

 

[Empty Hands]

But government at what level? We have a federal government and state governments as well as local governments. The role of the federal government is more tightly defined in the constitution than that of the states, what about that?

What about it? Do you think there should be a difference in what the local, state and federal governments can do?

Although the question is broader than that. State and local governments are not a feature of every governmental system. I'm looking for universal themes.

 

[Steve]

But government at what level? We have a federal government and state governments as well as local governments. The role of the federal government is more tightly defined in the constitution than that of the states, what about that?

Bill, why don't you share your opinions? I'd like to hear what you think. What are your thoughts on the role of government at the Federal and State levels? Bob Hubbard (I believe) wrote that we need to decide one way or the other to either empower the Federal government or do away with it and respect State sovereignty. Do you agree? If so, which way would you go, and what would that resulting government be responsible for doing?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No, that's not what I'm saying, I happen to think the Constitution is an excellent document and basis for our government. However, if I ask you to justify why government should do one thing but not another and your answer is "that's what's in the Constitution", then you have effectively ended debate with an Appeal to Authority. A similar answer would be "God wanted it that way." For that matter, the Framers had very clear justifications and philosophies as to what went into the Constitution, what did not, and why.

Governments do not have to be rationally justified, as you point out. However, what I am asking about here are philosophical beliefs - what you believe should be the system. Those should be able to be rationally justified, otherwise your beliefs are arbitrary. People can believe any arbitrary thing they want, but that doesn't then mean it should be taken seriously. If you say you believe in something, you should be able to point out why.

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't get your meaning the first time.

I believe that our government is essentially unlike any other government that has ever existed on the face of the earth at any time. And I believe it is superior to any that have ever existed.

The main reason is the Constitution. It provides a framework and lays out roles and responsibilities. Essentially, the role of government as stated is found in the Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's essentially it. Those five things and nothing more.

Now, as to how those things were to be done, that's another kettle of fish entirely.

The secondary reason that I find our current system of government superior and unique is that we are (or were intended to be) a decentralized, small, and weak union of states, each sovereign unto itself. The USA was supposed to essentially be a UN of sorts, an arbiter between the states, a common face that the states presented to the rest of the world for trade, self-defense, and treaties.

As I've mentioned many times, the Bill of Rights is absolutely unique. No one has one, not like ours. Our Bill of Rights grants NO RIGHTS TO ANYONE. It forbids the federal government from infringing upon rights that citizens already have; rights which predate the establishment of the federal government, rights which - if you believe in a Creator - were granted by the Act of Creation to us. Rights which are given can be taken back. Rights which are not given, but which the government is prohibited from infringing upon, cannot be taken back under any plausible legal theory. The difference is more than semantics, it is absolutely crucial to a free society.

Getting back to the role of government, then...

1) Establish Justice: To me, that means observing the rule of law. What is the law? Essentially anything that we, the people, acting through the vote or through our elected representatives, want it to be; so long as it does not conflict with #5 (Secure the Blessings of Liberty).

SIDE NOTE: It is a personal matter to many whether or not this 'establishing justice' is also meant to be applied to the states. Remembering that the original intent was that the federal government be a weak decentralized government and that the states should be sovereign, it is hard to justify to some. I tend to think that way myself.

2) Insure Domestic Tranquility: This means no state-to-state warfare, no rioting, no insurrections, Peace.

3) Provide for the Common Defense: We do this with a national military. Whether or not we should maintain a standing army is a question I do not indulge in. We do, and frankly, I can't imagine it would make sense for us not to. However, I do accept the argument that the Founders did not intend that. They also did not prohibit it.

4) Promote the General Welfare: This is the one that gets everyone into a tizzy. Me too, sometimes. What do we mean by that? Does 'promote' mean 'provide'? What exactly is promoting the general welfare, anyway? Does it mean mandatory national vaccinations for children? Mandatory education? A national health system? Ah, I dunno. I go both ways on it, depending upon the question. I can claim no purity of ideals here. I quite see the advantages of bringing the money and authority only a strong government can bring to bear on certain problems of health and wellness; I can also see how a government can get very full of itself and start ordering people to do this or not do that because "It's good for you." Yeah, lots of both going on. And sometimes the answer is not really cut and dried.

5) Secure the blessings of liberty: This to many is the key, the core, the crust of the biscuit. The government's job is essentially to get the hell out of the way of the citizens and let them do whatever they bloody well feel like doing. One does not defend liberty by forcing people by law to do what is good for them, or good for the environment, or good for Ralph Freaking Nader, etc.

In the end, I make lots of compromises in what I believe the proper role of government is. I tend towards belief in a smaller government, one which governs less and gets out of the way more. However, I am no longer the Libertarian I was in my younger days, I do see a role for government in some things that private industry simply can't or won't ever provide, and which does much good for many. But I realize that every incursion into liberty made for the sake or 'our own good' is another nail in what might one day be the coffin of liberty - sacrificed for the sake of safety, or health, or whatever it is that some folks think we ought to trade liberty for.

And it is not a left or right thing - I know people on the right who are all for wiping their asses with the Bill of Rights as long as they're keeping Muslims from building mosques or speaking middle-eastern languages in the USA, or to hell with our right to not have to prove our citizenship as long as we can catch a few illegal aliens, and I know left-wing guys who would gladly tear up the Constitution if it meant they could ban guns because they're evil and bad and it makes them nervous to know that people own them.

However, that is why I ultimately hold up the Constitution as a thing of beauty. It has been misused, twisted, and modified. But it has held up remarkably well over the years, and it still protects the fundamental rights it was intended to protect; it still defends the citizens against the ravages of the power-mad; and believe me ALL POLITICIANS ARE POWER-MAD. Yeah, we're chipped and weathered some around the edges, and there are some things that I'd love to see changed; but overall, I'm pretty happy with the way things are now. A bit less government, a bit less in the way of social program spending, and left-wing bullying about how I ought to be living (for my own good, of course) but otherwise, I'm OK.

Here is a good example of the juxtaposition I feel with regard to government intrusion into liberties...

One the one hand, I don't think it is the government's business to tell me to wear a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet. On the other hand, as a former LEO, I have seen many traffic accidents, including fatalities. I know what cars used to be like and what they are like now in terms of safety. And I do not for a moment think the auto industry would have done anything to make cars safer if they had not been forced to.

It's a balancing act, eh?

 

[billc]

Well, there are easy ones, national defense, federal. Roads, interstate anyway, federal. Get rid of the Dept. of education, agriculture, pretty much put these things in the hands of the state. I see the federal government as an extra layer of hands taking money and wasting it. For example, the dept. of education. People in a state send money to the federal government for the department of education. that is another layer of burueacrats and politicians that waste it, steal it or dispense it according to their wants and needs, not the childrens wants and needs. It makes more sense for each state to keep that money and spend it as they and their tax payers see fit. It is easier for me to go down to Springfield Illinois and track down my state senator and rep. to ask him why the schools stink, than it is to go to washington D.C. You also only have to worry about the state bureaucrats and politicians stealing the money and wasting it and using it to buy power.

Also, by keeping things on a state level, you are not mainlining mistakes throughout the whole country. If the federal government, ala George Bush, puts the emphasis in education on test scores, you know there are people who think that is the wrong approach. Also, if it doesn't actually work, and is in fact a huge mistake, by having the feds do it, you have affected the education systems of all the states. If you leave those decisions at the state level, any screw ups will be more localized and there will be states that actually try out and discover the right way to do things. Then other states can follow their example.

You may say, well, what about the poor states. I would say, I don't know how to solve that problem but sending money to washington for them to dole it out to poor states is not the answer either.

 

[Empty Hands]

Also, by keeping things on a state level, you are not mainlining mistakes throughout the whole country.

This is true, but it also allows mistakes to fester - like Jim Crow.

For that matter, our states are every bit as big as some entire nations. California by itself is the 8th largest economy in the world. Even if we observed a strict federalism, how does that prevent the states from becoming as twisted and despotic as you fear the federal government is? On some issues, in some states, the states are already worse (i.e. 4th amendment violations).

 

[Empty Hands]

It's a balancing act, eh?

Excellent, excellent post Bill. It is indeed a balancing act. I haven't seen a set of principles that when uniformly applied wouldn't produce plenty of unacceptable results. On the other hand, unrestrained pragmatism would lead us to violate liberties and curtail freedom for the greater good (or the greater expediency). Utilitarianism or pragmatism leavened with a healthy set of principles seems like the best mix - although it is awfully hard to get that mix right.