This post is a response to "LongShot" who has the honor of being the first person to ever comment on one of my blogs. (See comments section on my previous posting.) I also want to thank LongShot for taking the time to articulate his political position.
I would, of course, agree that people who enter into a "civil society" do so in order "to manage their own [collective] affairs." Political theory normally sees this happening with the creation of a constitution or government of some kind. That is the principal "institution" formed "to solve the problems we face." The value of a well-constituted government is that it becomes an institution through which the people continually "meet" to discuss and solve their problems. You don't have to continually create new institutions.
As we all know, our society has created a manifold of supposedly cooperative governments --- city, county, state, and federal. The purpose (theoretically) is to distribute problems and actions according to their scope --- local to national. If a pot-hole needs the be fixed, I call on my city government. If interstate commerce needs regulation, I call on the federal government.
I don't think we are in disagreement here, though the big question remaining is whether this organization works well. I'm glad that LongShot is satisfied with his local government. I can't say the same for mine. Of course, my federal congressman is David Dreier and I can't say that I have ever been satisfied with him either, nor does he represent my interests.
As we get into LongShot's proposals, something becomes more clear and I'm wondering if this isn't the crux of much of the current argument. LongShot suggests an extreme vision of currency and financial "reform" as well as termination of a wide variety of federal programs --- education, agriculture regulation, social security, medicare, you name it. BUT he immediately implies that these same functions can be dealt with in other ways. HENCE, it is not that the causes are unworthy, apparently; it is just that he does not want the federal government involved.
So here is what I conclude. LongShot does not object to civil society, i.e. government of some kind and at some level, dealing with our problems. He simply does not want a federal government. Perhaps that's too extreme. I guess that he wants a federal government that concerns itself ONLY with whatever passes across our national borders --- tariffs, defense, etc.
If all of our other personal problems and needs are handled by state and local governments, there is very little left, I would say, to calling myself an "American." In fact, LongShot would be a Pennsylvanian and I would be a Californian, meaning that most things that shape my life are involved in how the civil society of California decides to come up with solutions. I suppose that one of the advantages in this political solution would be that we would have massive migrations of people into Massachusetts where there is state-run health care or into Wisconsin where the dairy industry has long been protected to the degree of prohibiting importation of colored margarine. Pick your state!
Let me know if I am wrong here, but it seems to me that what we are debating is exactly what the Federalist Papers were written for. The issue, ultimately, is whether we shape a national character or whether we simply plow ahead as individual states. In certain ways, that is what the Civil War was fought over.
As I mentioned in my last post, I made a comment over at Tad Beckman's blog. He posted a thoughtful post in reply, and he happened to mention that I am his first ever commenter. He cross-posted his response as a comment on my blog, which, guess what, makes him MY first ever commenter.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are a few issues bouncing around in our posts, all of which are related, but possibly present different facets of the same issue. First, we have the the concept of subsidiarity, which is the principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized competent authority. This brings us to the second issue: the nature of federalism and the relationship between the member states and the federation. The third issue, and probably the most general of the three, is that of how much responsibility ought the government to have versus civil society.
As a side note, by civil society, I mean all of a society's non-governmental institutions, organizations, and rules, as opposed to the force-backed structures of the state. So when I say that an issue ought to be left to civil society, I am saying that people ought to be allowed to work out a voluntary solution that does not involve government coercion.
I'm not sure I can cover all three of these themes in a single blog entry, but we'll see how far I get. For the time being, I think it would be most productive to put aside the issue of federalism. Let's just consider a unitary state. A unitary state is, quoting Wiki, "a sovereign state governed as one single unit in which the central government is supreme and any administrative divisions (subnational units) exercise only powers that the central government chooses to delegate." Many of the world's nations are unitary states. One such nation would be France, for example.
Putting aside a discussion of federalism, we can focus more clearly on the issues of subsidiarity and the balance between civil society and the state. Federalism simply involves the delegation of some powers from each of the member states to the federation, but ought not affect the division of powers between the government (federal and state combined) and civil society.
So this leaves us again looking at the issue of "the size of government.", which is really a terrible term, but basically reflects the extent to which the people of a society are subject to coercive force from their government. In my opinion, the bigger the government, the smaller the individual. This is to say that the more power the government has to control our lives, the less freedom we have. This is really nothing but a tautology, but it bears stating, because it must be realized that every government power exacts a cost.
(continued in next comment...)
(...continued from previous comment)
ReplyDeleteWhat do I think are proper functions for government? Well, I am of the liberal school, probably best exemplified by John Locke, and believe that every person has the same rights, and that the legitimate purpose of government is to secure these rights better than they can be secured in a state of nature. So the most basic function of government is to protect us from criminals and invasion, which means peace officers, courts, judges, and defense forces.
Do I see any role beyond that? I suppose, although, an argument could be made that the above is truly all that is necessary. Perhaps roads, bridges, and tunnels. But on the other hand, why subsidize automobile transportation when railroads have to build and maintain their own tracks. Fire departments, although volunteer firefighters successfully perform the job. Hospitals, old age homes? Maybe, but many of these have been and are run by charities and religious orders. Water, sewer, sanitation? Sure, I have no objection.
As you can see, for each infrastructural element that we currently accept as having to be provided by the government, there are, or could be, alternatives provided by civil society. On the other hand, the items I have been mentioning are not the sort of things that have bankrupted countries, and they provide a service to everyone.
However, what I generally oppose on principle are not government services but government interference and government plunder. By interference, I am referring to the myriad rule and regulation that control our daily lives. The only rules that government has any business enforcing are the prohibition against predation, and the enforcement of contracts. As long as the government protects us from predators and gives us a means to settle disputes, civil society can solve any problem beyond that.
Also, because the government has the responsibility to protect us and our property , there can really be no moral justification for the government to take our money by force in order to give that money to others. In doing so, the government is simply acting as the muscle for a gang of looters.
So those are some further general points from an advocate of small government. Since Tad appears to be my only reader, I'll just throw out the invitation that if you have any specific issue you think is worth discussing, let me know and I'll try to focus on that.