Government
Introduction:
This section probably has the topic for several books (if i could write, which obviously i can't). This will, essentially, be: what i believe the role of government is and some of its failures. This will be a cursory and basic overview.
Some of my views may be shocking (or counter to what you believe). There are so many things about government to explain. i will most likely be talking about the congress (legislative level).
i will be mostly talking about the US form of government, the Constitutional Republic.
When most people think of government, the image of the Capitol Building or the White House, come to mind. True, these are symbols of government, but that is not all there is. Essentially, government is elected officials selected to run the area they are in (along with unelected bureaucracies).
There are basic levels of government: the local (neighborhood, city, county), the state, and finally the country. How hands-on the government (directly involved) should be is listed in order - with the most hands-on being the neighborhood and the least hands on being the federal government. It is not necessarily abandoning conservative ideals to be more hands-on (and spend more) the lower the level you are at.
i view conservatism as a big picture concept that works best at the higher, more hands-off, level of governance. Think of it is terms of a corporation: the country is the whole company, but it is made up of divisions (states), the divisions have departments (counties) and so forth. The federal level (like the head of a corporation) sets the vision and goals for the country (company in this example, for the whole). The divisions (states) are responsible for finding the operating details of obtaining their goals (and should have at least that degree of autonomy).
Many of the decision that should be made at the state level are being made at the federal level. i advocate the states making most of the governance decisions. Government is typically more responsible when there is more direct involvement and consequences. This is more true at the state than the federal level.
Government Ethics
Government ethics - some think of this as an oxymoron. From now on, i will be talking mostly about the federal level (unless otherwise stated).
So, what should the government do? The government does have some responsibilities: interstate commerce resolution, national defense, creating a positive environment for markets and a couple of other duties.
The US is more of a "representational republic" than a democracy (for good reason). People are elected to make the decisions. However, in recent years, it has become more evident there is a principal-agent problem with this system. Many of these "representatives" appear to go out of their way to buy votes or are acting in the interest of being bankrolled by special interest groups, which is a failure of democracy.
The government, ostensibly, was supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people". A government has the responsibility to spend and manage the resources it uses to maximize the benefit of society. The government should not overspend or misuse resources.
Sometimes it is easy to believe the government has lost its way. Some of what i consider ethical government considerations will probably be worked into further sections.
Big point: the government has no financial resources of its own; the money it spends belongs to the people (taxpayers).
Government: Smaller is Better
If you own stock in a corporation, you want the company to maximize your value. This involves being prudent, efficient and smart. Shouldn't you want the same qualities in your government? The government takes its money from the people.
However, sometimes there is an incentive for a government to take more money to pay for programs. These programs increase the size and scope (what they are involved in) of the US Government. This added government involvement and resource usage takes freedoms are resources from its citizens. In other words, government intervention is inversely proportional to individual freedom/liberty.
The government takes money that could be used in the private sector (sometimes referred to as crowding out). Since the government needs funding for itself (and takes it away from citizens and businesses), it is important to decide what thing government should and should not be involved in. This is a fine balancing act. Some people want the government to do more for them (more intervention in life), some want less.
The conservative wants a government; they just know that there is a tradeoff between government involvement and freedom. There are roles the government should be involved in, such as: national defense, interstate commerce (actual not tangential), the legal system and others which basically set up a country with well-functioning markets.
There is an expression in economics: "There's no such thing as a free lunch". There is always a cost to government programs that must be paid (even if it isn't you paying for it).
What Government Should Be
i guess i touched on that a little above. Government should be responsible with the taxpayer provided resources. Many times, the most responsible course of action is to stay out of something (deferring to lower levels) or say "no".
Most of the taxes levied should be going to the states. Government should never spend more money than it takes in. Government should help with interstate commerce issues and markets. Government should deal with international trade, treaties and issues outside those that corporations can handle on their own.
Unfortunately, there are times when a government must regulate industries or practices for the good of society. i acknowledge this but prefer it to be at the minimum level possible (and only what is absolutely necessary). there are external costs that result from the usage/manufacturing of a good or service this is not fully accounted for by price (called an externality). An example might be air pollution from a factory. The concept of "global warming" is too nebulous to be a defined as an externality (especially as it relates to one entity/country).
Government should be as small as possible. The scope of the government should be limited to providing as little as society sees fit (as there are costs for running programs/services). The amount of wasteful government spending should be limited. The government should only provide programs that have a equal or positive cost/benefit analysis (that are fiscally justifiable).
A taxpayer in Seattle should not have to pay for a marina district in Iowa (that is a phenomenon known a pork). Adding provisions to legislation that impact cost outside the intended scope of the bill should be discourages (sometimes known as earmarks). These kinds of things are unfair to the country as a whole.
The scope of legislation in the House of Representatives and/or the Senate should be limited to programs and/or bills that relate to the country as a whole; not specific: cities, states, etc.
What Government Should Not Be
So now that i've stated a little bit of what roles i see as acceptable for government to take, what roles should government stay out of? Government should not attempt to transfer wealth from one group to another.
- Everything in your life should not be touched in some way by the government.
- Government should not be a lender or a borrower.
- Government should not spend more than it takes in - ever.
- It is not the responsibility to provide any service that can be provided by the private sector
- Government should not absolve people of personal responsibility (or take away consequences)
- Government should not be about controlling the people or their actions' it should be about enabling the people with limited intervention in their lives
- Government should not intervene in the governance of any international entities
Level of Intervention Allowable
i might have answered this in my sections: Levels of Government, What Government Should Be, and What Government Should Not Be. Ultimately, the level of intervention allowable should be determined by the voters (but not fully). It is a fluid situation and will change from time to time.
This must be reconciled with the voters wanting benefits they don't pay for, long-term policy implications (voters tend to think more of short-term "benefits" not long-term ramifications), wanting to punish those who are more successful, etc. In other words, the voters vote in their apparent rational self-interest, but it may not be best for the country as a whole (especially considering time implications).
There seems to be a sense of jealousy/envy that some voters have for people/businesses who are more successful. A perfect example of this took place in Oregon where there was a ballot initiative to raise taxes on those making over a set amount of money (i think it was like $250,000 a year). Basically, this is a misuse of "democracy" to enable some group to benefit at the expense of another group (poorer people voting on a tax increase for someone else, because they don't have to pay anything).
Sometimes, you'll have to do something the voters don't want, but is absolutely necessary.
My preferred level of government intervention is limited. If the government spends on Project B, it has to get the resources from somewhere (either another project or the taxpayers). i view government intervention as a form of rights limitation (rights in that it restricts the way you spend your money, what you can do, or your total amount of resources). Money equals opportunity in a capitalist system.
Some countries, (like the Scandanavian ones) have a higher degree of government intervention. This is OK for them, as it is how their country was defined and the residents expect (maybe due to resource control from a monarchy and essentially being the same size of some states). Though it should be noted, they are still capitalism based. It should also be noted that immigration/asylum programs were a bad idea.
The US is a different beast entirely. It was based off of personal freedom, self-reliance, opportunity, and limited government intervention. It is too late for the people to accept a change of definition (hopefully).
Some people view the perceived success of the Scandanavian countries and think the same successes (or apparent successes) can be emulated in the US. That is impossible considering the large population (and economy) of the US and the size of the paradigm shift that would be necessary. That doesn't mean nefarious forces haven't been making perceived inroads (since i wrote this in 2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment