A Question of Government Power
The question: should government power be used whenever beneficial, or only for narrowly-defined tasks?
In discussing the healthcare mandate, I’ve been debating with a friend. The contrast between the federal government and the states came up. We both agree that the federal government shouldn’t use a healthcare mandate, but for different reasons. We both think it would be impractical (a managerial disaster), but I also think that we shouldn’t do it in the first place, because in my view, that’s not what government power is for. The counter argument (if I may speak in his place) is that democracy means that people can choose to do whatever they want, and all they need is a majority. He’s only against it because it’s impractical; if it could work, he’d see nothing against it.
Soon, I imagined a test case. What if the state of Massachusetts decided to go into the clam chowder business … as a state? They’d corner the market. They’d have the resources to advertise and push their product, far more than any private entity could. They’d have the local expertise to put out a high quality product. They could make a bundle. They could use their money to fund the government. Remember, before the income tax, government funded itself (basically) through tariffs. Why not through commerce? It’s all just financing the government, after all. Further, state governments already run lotteries, which are nothing more than sheer gambling schemes designed to soak money from people. Would going into commercial business be any more objectionable?
I argue against it. Government should only be used for defined tasks. Power is coercion, and government power is coercion coupled with the moral authority of the people. The only time we should ever allow coercion in the first place is when it’s necessary for the people to function. Coercion isn’t just another tool in the toolbox, to be used whenever it can move things along. Doing good is not enough; the good must be necessary.
The hypothetical case plays out in real life. Healthcare is a good, and when a mandate is necessary to provide universal coverage, maybe it’s necessary for the government to perform a needed function.
- I dispute that healthcare is a human right, but even if it was, that doesn’t mean that it needs financing through government. It strikes me odd to say “human right’ and “needs financing” in the same sentence, unless a “not” is placed correctly.
- Also, would it make sense for Colorado to declare healthcare a human right, but for Texas to declare otherwise? How can the recognition of human rights be so optional? To say that Colorado and Texas have different opinions doesn’t address the problem, because the only justification for using coercion is necessity, which should be equally obvious to everyone.
I’m a conservative because of my view of political power. Power is coercion, and it contradicts the individual’s freedom. I consider an individual’s freedom to be as close to sacred as anything in the secular world. It’s the foundational grace of the secular world. Using government coercion to contradict that grace should only be a last resort.
I accept that power is necessary, and I support its use when the matter is necessary. But I oppose its use when it’s convenient, or even when it’s beneficial.
I argue that the healthcare mandate is a case where government power might be beneficial, but that alone is not enough to justify it. When it isn’t necessary, we shouldn't use government coercion. Ever. Even if it’s convenient. Even if it’s beneficial.
- Comment (38)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: A Question of Government Power
First, your friend does not seem to agree with the founders on what good government is.
Second, has your friend ever read Common Sense?
Yes, government is force. When required it is the only solution, but when not required as the only solution it is the worst possible outcome. We've done government so well and kept it so benign that many have lost perspective on how terrible it naturally becomes if not tightly constrained.
Jan '11
Re: A Question of Government Power
I'm definitely stealing that line. Very true. Thanks!
Apr '11
Re: A Question of Government Power
The founding fathers lived under a king who could display beneficence along with holding them in tyranny. They chose a better way having learned from history.
The majority around us have learned nothing from what transpired yesterday or what is currently occurring in Europe and their inevitable decline.
Dec '10
Re: A Question of Government Power
KC, those of us who hold the line sometimes forget (at least it seems this way to me) how well our government has worked out. Sure, it's no where close to the ideal envisioned by the founders, but it's still closer to that than to the way government historically exists. We're eating sirloin and complaining it's not ribeye when most of humanity is still scrounging for tubers.
Jan '11
Re: A Question of Government Power
Agreed, wholeheartedly. And that's why we get so jumpy and nervous by these encroachments on individual freedom. The quality of government is directly related to the respect it holds for individual freedom.
Oct '10
Re: A Question of Government Power
The United States has two governments, Federal and State, which are vastly different in scope and power.
The Federal government is republican in form, and limited by constitution. And as Dr. Larry Arne at Hillsdale points out, it's form and function are first defined by the Declaration of Independence and shaped by the Constitution, properly amended. No where does any of KC's discussion above fit into the Federal mandate.
The states can do almost any of the above they choose to do, but limited by the defined role of any government found in the Declaration of Independence.
Now the world of politics comes into play. Within the powers of each state's constitution is a great deal of self defined latitude. And as a free people, we can choose our state.
So... can Massachusetts corner the chowder market? Yes... and increase the population of Connecticut and Maine by so doing. Can Colorado mandate health insurance for it's citizens? Yes... and increase the population of Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico and Utah.
But... that is a fantasy. We lost it all with the 17th amendment and the acceptance of progressivism.
And TKP is right, we suffer from success.
Edited on Dec 10, 2011 at 10:23amAug '10
Re: A Question of Government Power
Your friend believes in the Tyranny of the Majority... if a simple majority of society wants something, they have the power to vote it to themselves - This tyranny will ultimately deprive the minority of even the most basic rights, first economic freedom, then other liberties, then life itself.
This is why our founders gave us limited government and an express Bill of Rights (including the 9th and 10th amendments - which courts have acknowledged 'add nothing' to the basic document.) My only thought there is, if it adds nothing, then why was it included in the Bill of Rights at all?
In Malaysia, the majority ethnic Malay continually vote themselves privileges (free housing, healthcare, college education) while excessively taxing the ethnic Chinese minority to pay for these. (It is their own version of Affirmative Action, but biased toward an ethnic majority). However since, such wealth distribution leads to laziness - the Chinese minority is still makes a very good living simply by doing the work.
May '10
Re: A Question of Government Power
If government intervention within the healthcare industry was beneficial overall, I couldn't find myself opposing it. By what standard would it be just to replace a practical means with an impractical one?
May '10
Re: A Question of Government Power
Dec '10
Re: A Question of Government Power
Your statement has two assumptions that so far have not been born out in reality. First, government intervention in the healthcare industry has been a disaster front to back, top to bottom, and through and through. Second, using government for things it is ill suited for is always impractical, and that's the nicest way of putting it. The founders understood that it was not only impractical but also a grave threat to life, liberty, and property, and that's a primary reason they designed the government to be of limited, enumerated powers with all else remaining with the states and the people.
May '11
Re: A Question of Government Power
KC ask your friend if they think that 51% of the voters decide to bring back slavery if that would follow his idea that....
... I'm sure he will love that question!
I'm from Canada, and in the province of British Columbia where I grew up, we have a Liquor Control Board, LCB they ran the liquor stores in BC. Back then you could ONLY buy liquor at a LCB store, they had lousy hours and lousy a selection especially of wine. I understand that now things have changed somewhat, but still the LCBs in Canada decide what gets imported. This state control leads to really stupid outcomes. Back maybe ten years ago we were in Vancouver visiting family, my lovely wife and I run her family business here in Tokyo, a liquor shop. We went to the flagship LCB store in Vancouver looking for a GOOD bottle of wine, the BEST bottle we could find was a second growth French Bordeaux for maybe $100, not that good and way too young.
cont.......
May '11
Re: A Question of Government Power
They had no first growths, and no outstanding Burgundy at all, not to mention the total lack of good Italian wine. I had a much better selection of wine back in Tokyo, Mouton, Lafite, Haut-Brion, Margaux etc and I have a lot of vintages going back to the sixties. Our wine selection is very well rounded, we have put it together over 20 years and have a long range view of the market (which is very poor right now!). There is no way that a government run LCB would or could ever do this, they do not have the imagination, for one, nor do they have the long term vision to buy 4 cases of first growth Bordeaux, sell three to pay to keep one case for 10 to 20 years like we commonly do. Government might want to corner the market on Chowder, and they could well do so for a time, but soon the quality would suffer and the ad campaigns would be boring etc and some small local company would make really good clam chowder and then they would sell like hot cakes, and the state run company would start costing the taxpayer money.
Domo
Edited on Dec 10, 2011 at 4:58pmApr '11
Re: A Question of Government Power
This argument applies to many other activities of government not just healthcare. For example, the Founders quoted by The King Prawn also disfavored a standing army. They preferred to leave security to state militias and the people themselves. We once raised regiments from the states, then we had atomic groups, now we have the brigade system.
If KC's principle of non-coercion is followed in a thoroughgoing way, we have a very different government than is envisioned by liberals or neo-conservatives.
Jan '11
Re: A Question of Government Power
That's the question, isn't it? Is something justice because it's "better for everyone?"
That's a contrast between the aggregate and the individual. Something that would be better for everyone - in the aggregate - may require society to ignore the freedom of individuals. I'd argue that you only do that when necessary; more precisely, when it would be difficult or impossible for individuals to function without it. The right of individuals to make decisions for themselves is primary, not secondary, to the benefit to society.
Jul '10
Re: A Question of Government Power
I think this puts the onus in the wrong place. Our nation has proven capable of producing ribeye, but with the government's help the people are reduced to sirloin.
Government is power, power corrupts, and only corrupted candidates are deemed suitable by those in power. The less government is permitted to do, the less the power, the less the corruption. Praxis shows that, if permitted, government will grow bigger and bigger until the whole experiment implodes from gross mismanagement and hardship ensues mitigated by informal institutions like the black market.
Government is power, wants more power, it is not as if they know how to run anything. How long after the start of a war does it take to shake out the useless generals?
Dec '10
Re: A Question of Government Power
This is exactly what the founding fathers knew and why they designed a government of limited, enumerated powers. No one other than Perry is making the case, and he just can't make it articulately. Obama tries to make the case that we're for a society where "you're on your own," and he's right to some extent. What he fails to understand is that even on our own our chances are greater for success than with government's help. Even at the bottom of a pit it's better to claw your way to the top than to have someone hand down a snake to grasp.
Apr '11
Re: A Question of Government Power
The King Prawn
No one other than Perry is making the case, and he just can't make it articulately.
Uninformed. Ron Paul makes the case very articulately,and he's more thoroughgoing. He wants to dismantle the unconstitutional administrative state, embodied in the agencies, created by the Progressives. Paul has consistently voted for limited government. Perry hasn't. Perry isn't nearly that loyal to constitutional government.
Who but Paul is?
May '11
Re: A Question of Government Power
KC Mulville: The question: should government power be used whenever beneficial, or only for narrowly-defined tasks?
I consider an individual’s freedom to be as close to sacred as anything in the secular world. It’s the foundational grace of the secular world. Using government coercion to contradict that grace should only be a last resort.
K.C. I agree that an individual's freedom is sacred. I believe that the right to private property is just as important. If the government takes your house, you are still free to go about your business and free to complain. You just don't have a house to do it from.
Government power (at least in the U.S.) is about taking private property either through taxes and fees or fines and confiscation. Yes, jail comes into play but even that starts out with the gov't demanding bail money to stay out.
May '11
Re: A Question of Government Power
Question K.C. What's with the hat? I think you would look good in this. Thoughts?
Oct '11
Re: A Question of Government Power
The King Prawn
Obama tries to make the case that we're for a society where "you're on your own," and he's right to some extent. What he fails to understand is that ...
What a lot of people fail to understand is that we're not on our own, but that we work together much better in the absence of government involvement. We work together through free economic interaction, free civic association, and free family bonds. Government attracts children, bullies, and incompetents - those who prefer telling others what to do, over the responsibility and hard work of doing it themselves.