Today in my American Government class we were given this topic for a paper:
“Americans often complain about the gridlock and inefficiency of government. Yet, through mechanisms like separation of powers, our political system was purposefully crafted to introduce gridlock and inefficiency. Should the American political system be made more efficient? How? What are the advantages and disadvantages of efficiency in political systems?”
If I understand this correctly he is asking the class if the inefficiently of government is a good or bad. He also fails to define what he means by efficient. If he means efficient in stripping away the freedom of it’s citizens then no it does not need to be any more efficient. If he is speaking of economic efficiency then my paper would focus on how it is impossible for socialism to calculate therefore government doesn’t even have the potential of being economically efficient.
If given this assignment which direction would you take it in?
It seems that if government were 0% efficient, it could not pass new laws, enforce existing laws, collect taxes, or anything, so it would be functionally nonexistent and we would have anarchy.
Also, since political systems probably means political systems based on coercion, the disadvantage of any efficiency above 0% is that there is less liberty. I would totally make this a piece arguing for anarchy by means of 0% efficiency. I would also note any conclusions that would be different if the government were opt-in/out.
Seems pretty tough to me. He needs to define what he thinks the purpose of government is. Or maybe you can. Just use the Declaration of Independence which states that governments are formed to protect rights. Then explain what negative rights are. Then explain that yes, it is extremely inefficient at protecting rights, given that it is the biggest violator of them. Oh wait, that might not go over too well.
Its anything but an “absurd topic”; rather, it is one that has very real consequences as to the institutional construction of the American political system.
Quite honesty, have you been paying attention in your class whatsoever? I have never been in this class, I do not even know your teacher, yet I clearly understand what he is talking about. Government efficieny, in this sense, is obviously meant to reflect the efficiency of the government in passing new laws, it is not him failing to define what is meant by efficient, rather it is you failing to connect pretty obvious dots.
None of these are what he is talking about.
Is it good that a government be able to pass new laws quickly, or is a gridlock in the favor of the status quo beneficial because it prevents unnecessary change that can result in undesirable unintended consequnces?
Disaster. Law enforcement is part of government, so being 100% efficient would ensure that every law on the books is immediately enforced and every lawbreaker is immediately caught and sentenced. Gets even worse when you realize that 100% efficiency (meaning every policy is carried out perfectly and immediately) means the moment a thought crime bill is passed, ex hypothesi, pretty much everyone would be in prison. That’s taking it a bit literally, but how else is there to take it? [:P]
I call it an absurd question only because it deals with an institution that very existence depends on violating the same rights it was meant to protect in the first place. So to be efficient in protecting the rights it was established to protect the government could no longer maintain its status as government. To be 0% efficient these rights would be violated in an infinite number of ways.
“The government’s ability to pass laws” and “stripping away the freedom of it’s citizens” are one in the same.
Both scenarios represents a failure in protecting the rights the government was created to protect meaning that government is always inefficient?
This stuck out to me. Separation of powers became eroded sometime after Andrew Jackson, probably more so during and after Lincoln (but I’m not an expert) but even before him it slowly began to erode when the Supreme Court made decisions that overturned other branches such as this:
"The first important case of Marshall’s career was Marbury v. Madison (1803), in which the Supreme Court invalidated a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 on the grounds that it violated the Constitution by attempting to expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Marbury was the first case in which the Supreme Court ruled an act of Congress unconstitutional; it firmly established the doctrine of judicial review. The Court’s decision was opposed by President Thomas Jefferson, who lamented that this doctrine made the Constitution “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
Others such as the Supreme Court saying the 1st, I believe, Central Bank was “necessary and proper”, and thus this can be considered quite possibly legislation, which is what Congress does. Cause upon this discussion, then the Executive and Legislative branches both pretty much said, ‘Well if the Judicial branch says it’s Constitution - then - it’s Constitutional.’ From early on the Supreme Court became the decider as to what is Constitutional and what is not. Before these cases and even after these cases for some time, until later erosive measures, the three branches could each decide independently what is Constitutional, but each branch holds certain powers that keeps the other branches in check if abuses would happen. Yet what happens anymore, say for instance when it comes to the war powers, ever since Truman invaded Korea without Congressional approval it has remained a norm that has become further eroded as Congress doesn’t even ask questions hardly anymore and they merely debate the war chest. But even that isn’t much debated anymore or else Congressional members that don’t support funding wars are seen as harming the troops. Even the President legislates now and hand writes Executive Orders onto Acts of Congress.
I mean U.S. troops have invaded Somalia within the last couple days - is that even on the news outside of the NO debate in D.C., I mean not even a whisper out of D.C. as of last night. The Pentagon had refused to even comment at first, but now they are admitting troops have invaded.
So it went from these three branches could argue and not support each other all day and night - to - they simply go with the flow and hardly a check of power, let alone a separation of power, occurs.
Then say that. You should talk about how the founding fathers set up a political system too efficient, and that a few of them contradicted themselves. I’d also mention the vagueness of the constitution, and how the expansion of the executive branch, ad infinitum, should have been expected.
This is a common topic, at least since 1999. I used police forces as a central theme. It got me a 3.7. Go with Block, Hayek, and Machiavelli. Use all of Machiavelli, and for Block and Hayek the research is up to you. I can’t remember it was ten years ago. Just don’t be dissuaded by a strawman after you make the argument. It leads to ruin.
Note: I didn’t even know of block when I wrote the paper. I relied upon Machiavelli and Hayek.
The topic is absurd. It highlights the absurdity of a system of ‘checks and balances.’ In practice checks and balances are mostly illusory since government is a self-serving institution and its members cooperate to fleece the public rather than check each other.
Also, it’s not clear what an ‘efficient’ government is - and what the purpose of having hard-to-change laws is. If government supports, say, slavery and reforming the ‘laws’ so as to get rid of slavery is difficult, then one wonders what’s the point of a hard-to-change system, unless one is a slaver driver…
There’s nothing absurd about such a paper at all. The fact that efficiency in regards to the government is somewhat hard to define (as it is with the market, by the way) doesn’t mean that one can’t analyse how a given set up institutional arrangements will work with regards to a given definition of “efficiency” (presumably you have been given a benchmark with which you can analyse with efficiency of government, otherwise, make one, it’ll make your paper more interesting).
The fact of the matter is that if you have any interest in Austrian economics this sort of paper should interest you. Observing the incentives generated by the arrangements in question on human action is something that should complement your studies in Austrian economics. Huge amounts of literature both in economics and political science has been devoted to the question you’re going to attempt to answer.
Efficient government can protect rights, it is a basic truth from mankind’s history that you seem to be blind to.
Then prove it in your paper.
Is it difficult for you to answer a question as to government without parroting some anarchist phrase that has absolutely nothing to do with my statement?
Neither represents a failure in protecting rights; rather, as I’ve said before there is a stunningly convincing correlation between an efficient government, and the protection of “rights”. Nevertheless, you once again did not bother addressing my point.
My opinion is that we should have the most inept people in government. As Murray Rothbard said ‘We want people in government who can’t find the door knob.’ People will become more reliant on trade and non-state actors and a voluntary society has a better chance of flourishing under such a system. You can probably squeeze 3-4 pages out of that idea.
Thank you Laughing Man and Liberty Student for your quick replies. I’ll look into picking up a copy of The Prince and adding it to my already monsterous reading list.