Big G, Little G, what begins with G?
This little line from Dr. Seuss is a pretty simple kids concept until you use the word Government. Then it's a whole new question. "Big Government? Little Government? What begins with Government?" Wow, big question. I've had numerous things pop into my existence in the past few weeks that gave me little insights into this topic. Why big government works. Why it doesn't work. When small government is needed. When it doesn't work. So what is our balance? Where do we begin our governing, and where do we end it? These words came to me after the concept had been formulating in my head for a couple weeks:
Government should only do what only government can do.
It became so simple and so understandable. It's a complete policy in itself, one that could govern the government, if given a chance.
What I want you to do is memorize it, refer to it in conversation, consider it in your voting, and teach it to your kids. It could go a long way.
4 comments:
"Government should only do what only government can do."
OK, that's an excellent maxim--in that it has the poetic characteristics of a good maxim with its (almost? more than?) chiastic structure, and it makes a far-reaching point in a short and elegant phrase--but is it true? I'm inclined to believe that it may be, since government clearly fails very often when it tries to do things that private companies and non-profit organizations can do well, but I'd like some more examples before deciding if the truth is quite so categorical. Maybe government should simply *primarily* do what only government can do.
I can give you one example where government fails miserably and causes more harm than most people can imagine: aid work. Large government (and "non-government" aid organizations cost billions of dollars, accomplish very little good, do unbelievable amounts of harm, and fuel corruption in the countries they purport to help as well as within the aid organizations. On the other hand, grass-roots community based organizations as well as faith-based (almost invariably Christian) organizations accomplish a great deal of good, and do very little harm.
If you don't believe me, read Lords of Poverty. It lays out the facts of how these large behemoths work (and don't work) in painful detail. I shared this book with a friend in college who was considering such work, and she asked one of her professors, with a great deal of experience doing such work, if it was true. His answer was "sadly, yes, it's true." Unfortunately some people think that if they just try harder *they* will be able to do some good. They would be much better off giving up on such organizations and working exclusively with those (smaller, privately run) organizations that are actually bringing about a positive change.
OK, so that's my example. (I won't even get started about how government schools are essentially day-prisons for innocent--as well as guilty--kids.) Can you give some examples?
Brandon, thanks for the well thought out comment. I agree with your points, if I understand them correctly. I likewise would be cautious before using this principle as the sole principle for beginning any new government activity, although I would be much more liberal using it as a sole principle for ending much of government's current activity. They have their tentacles everywhere.
You asked for examples, and mentioned the school system. This is a big one. It is an example of monopoly-upheld-by-law. Everyone knows the school systems are inadequate. But they are also corrupt, overfunded and inefficient. So much money pours into them and yet they can't figure out the most basic problems with the system. There is too little competition between schools. Teachers are paid too little while technology is paid too much. Since the money comes out of our taxes, parents who want a better education for their child can't spend more on the school they attend, they have to spend twice as much and more to send them to a private school. Fortunately many parents are doing that, and homeschooling too. But not everyone has the means. Oh they would, if they didn't pay the taxes for their child's schooling. For sure, school vouchers would ensure "no child left behind," but so many people are against that because that would mean the public schools would no longer get the money for the kids who don't attend them. Too many teachers go into teaching not because they love kids and want to see them grow and mature, but because they want the money. We have a system that is flooded with people who run a career for themselves, and then the "trouble kids" only interfere with their goals and their life, they are no longer opportunities for influence. When a teacher's goal is not primarily that the students learn, the students will not learn; and we have seen this happen in our country. This filters down directly from the government control of education. This is only one way to look at the problem of government education. There are many other explanations of the problem. But we have seen that non-government schools and even homeschools consistently far-exceed the quality of the public school. Government is not the only one who can school, and so it should never have taken the control that it did. Yes, we have had the problem of lack of schooling. At some point perhaps only the government could help. At that time the government should help -- but NOT by taking the entire system. It takes a creative approach, some other way to stimulate the private institutions to spread, to cover the poor and the rich alike.
For another example, the post office. Back in the day, we had a thing called "post riders" that delivered mail. It was a network of horse-riders that quite reliably and quickly brought letters and packages from coast to coast. It was a great service, but at that time the states were more distinct and only a super-state organization could get this thing managed and moving. Now it is different. Numerous private organizations have proved themselves capable and competent to accomplish this monumental task, and yet the government still runs their piddly little postal service. I tell you, if the government ended their postal service today, within two weeks we would all happily be using Fedex, UPS, DHL and other services, and they would grow quickly to thrive and bless us with lower prices and smarter services.
Somebody has rewritten the Declaration of Independence on so many American minds. They've rewritten it to say something like, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men have evolved equal, that they are endowed by their government with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Fairness, Education, Income, Safety, Healthcare and the pursuit of Happiness."
I'd appreciate it if the government's only purpose was to UPHOLD the God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. These are the things Government was instituted among men to do, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed BECAUSE THE GOVERNED NEEDED A GOVERNMENT TO ACCOMPLISH THOSE ENDS.
I'm sorry, but your phrase -- Government should only do what only government can do -- is essentially meaningless since it depends on how you define the problem.
Canada has a privately run air traffic control system. But private pilots and small commercial aviation operations are very much against doing the same thing in the U.S., because they are small compared to the airlines, and they're afraid that in a privatized system they would get the short end of the stick. The airlines have money, and they could/would use the money to get a favored status. And realize that private pilots tend to be a pretty conservative group.
So how do you define the problem? Are we after a safe air traffic control system? Sure. Are we after a fair air traffic control system in which all players have a say independent of their wealth? Well with the government, votes count more than money (although the two are not related). In a private system money counts most.
Same thing holds for the post office. Is our goal simply to provide postal services? Or is it to provide a roughly level playing field irrespective of whether you're in a large metropolitan area or in rural Alaska, whether you send out 1 item a week or tens of thousands.
We could privatize it, but then the private players would cherry pick the low cost, easy, bulk services (e.g., mail traveling within Manhattan or between the largest metropolitan areas) leaving the people in Alaska and in rural America in a more difficult position.
And given how much of our economy rests on reliable, low-cost mail service (look in your mailbox today and see what percentage of the items in there have are there for an economic purpose), you can get a sense of the difficulties that would ensue.
Do you actually think that within two weeks the private companies could develop the infrastructure to provide the level of postal service we currently have? They could visit nearly every household and business in the U.S. six days a week to drop off and pick up mail? They don't have the trucks, the aircraft, the employees, the access to fuel, the sorting equipment, the expertise, the payment handling infrastructure, etc. to do that. So let's not be silly.
And speaking of being silly, your statement that every family would have the income to send their kids to school if they didn't have to pay taxes to support the school system is also laughable. You think you can just make this stuff up, right?
Why is it that people with libertarian leaning views so much like to over-simplify the world to the point of silliness? I have an idea. They gravitate towards simple solutions, so they impose a simplicity on the world that doesn't exist.
The issue is not having government only do what only government can do. The issue is figuring out what our goals actually are and comparing the alternatives. Sometimes we will want to harness the market, sometimes we will want government, and sometimes we will want a patchwork. No, it's not as simple as your saying, but the real world isn't simple; it's complex and messy. And I prefer realistic over pithy any day of the week.
dear anon1 - a sage retort - but i can still hear the hiss of aerosol cans spraying this maxim across campuses hear as well.
nothing is black an white in 'G land' sadly - just hues of ever complex grey.
a good discussion tho'
Post a Comment