The role of government

Economics Political Theory
1

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the below.

It is my attempt to show what the general role/purpose of government should be, through the use of the “three parts of morality:”

(my attempt to state that there is a purpose for government, but it is a specific and limited one)

The three parts of morality:

  1. Fair play between individuals. This means that one individual should not interfere with the self-interests of another individual.

  2. Harmonization within an individual. This is to reject the statement “as long as what I do does not bother anyone else, it can’t be wrong.” This means that one can have incorrect/improper intentions, thoughts, etc. (and that in the grand scheme of things, there is a right and wrong to one’s intentions and thoughts)

  3. Adherence to the general goal for all individuals. This is the idea of having a proper relationship between an individual and the being that created it (what some will call one’s relationship with God).

I understand that the words “fair, self-interests, harmonization, adherence, proper, etc” will be subject to interpretation. But please read the below two examples. They attempt to further explain the three parts of morality.

A) Consider 3 ships sailing to a far-off destination. In order for success to be achieved, the ships must not be sailing into each other during the voyage for obvious reasons (#1). However, the ships must be individually well-maintained in order to sail at all (#2). And finally, the ships must arrive at the correct place (#3). Even if all the ships are pristine and communicate flawlessly with each other, the voyage will not be a success if they arrive in Cape Town when they were meant to arrive in New York.

B) Consider a band playing a tune. In order for success to be achieved, each player must play their notes at the correct time relative to the other players in the band (#1). Also, each player must have a well functioning instrument that is capable of playing the appropriate notes (#2). And finally, they must be playing the appropriate type of music. Even if everyone has a great instrument and plays their part at the right time, it will not be a success if they play dead marches when they were meant to play dancing music (#3).

Why this relates to the government function in society:

Government should only deal with issues relating to #1, period. Let’s consider certain policies by the US government today which very clearly step out of #1 and move into #2 or #3.

  • The creation of Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae, Sallie Mae

  • Any form of government welfare (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid)

  • Federal funding for higher education

  • Government mandated health insurance

  • Farm subsidies or any other business subsidy

  • Bank bailouts

Things that fall into category #1 would be national defense, law enforcement and law creation; essentially police departments, legislatures, and the court system. I believe a case could be made for small local government funding of roads/sidewalks, because they effectively become public goods when on a small scale. (A public good is a good that the provider cannot provide exclusively to only those who pay for it. If 100 out of 200 people pay for a police department, the police department will essentially end up protecting all 200 people.)

The reason why government activities that move into #2 or #3 are wrong is because they necessarily mean that the government must take money/time/resources, without consent, from one individual and spend it on another unrelated individual.

I disagree if someone says “as long as what I do does not bother anyone else, it can’t be wrong.” However, I agree if someone says “as long as what I do does not bother anyone else, the government should not get involved.”

P.S. These three parts of morality come from a well-known author. But I prefer to leave the name out for now.

Morality and the role of government
2

If it’s wrong to do things without individuals’ consent, then why should it provide security and arbitration without consent? Those are goods too.

Food for thought:

3

To try to force #1 on individuals is nonsensical. To even have a government some individual must be determining what is fair play for you, which immediately causes all attempts at acting on #1 to break itself as a rule.

4

Are you implicitly claiming that there are three parts to “morality”? Or are you asking us to take that as true arguendo (i.e. for the sake of argument)?

5

i guess my critique is this: why do you think it is necessary for government to have a monopoly on national defense, law enforcement, and law creation (police departments, legistlatures, and court systems).

This whole claim fails because you are assuming that without government, these services would not exist…

Assuming all this to be true, defending “limited government” is pointless… All governments grow over time.I feel sympathetic to my limited government/ minarchists friends. They believe that if we had limited government, then there would be some good by having a government. But there are two obvious problems with limited government.

  1. How limited is the ideal limited government? There is way too much dispute in this limited government crowd on what government programs we should have and what government programs we should abolish. To some, cutting the Department of Education, medicare,medicaid, social security, Dep.of transportation, or public roads is way too radical of an idea and it is TOO limited of a government for them. So what is the ideal limited government?
    2)Governments grow over time. There is no escaping this fact. Even if we had an answer to the first problem (What is the ideal limited government), we still face the government growing over time. This is implied by Hayek in his “Road to Serfdom.”

But lets take a closer look at this morality system… I am going to ignore #2 and #3 because you justify government with #1( one individual should not interfere with the self-interests of another individual. ) So by justify government with #1, you are basically saying that individuals should not interfere with the self interests of anothers EXCEPT for the Government. You are basically giving government the role to interfere with other’s self interests.

6

I’m not claiming this implicitly, and not saying that “there are three parts AND ONLY three parts.” But I generally find it to be a reasonable way to look at “morality” or "right vs. wrong.

I would be curious to hear if you think that line of thinking is flawed, or misses a key aspect of “morality” or “right vs. wrong.”

7

[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]

This whole claim fails because you are assuming that without government, these services would not exist…

[/quote]

It’s not that i think the services would not exist. I think that given the nature of a public good and how difficult it is to deliver a public good to ONLY the people who have paid for it, it is more logical to have a government provide these services.

[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]

There is way too much dispute in this limited government crowd on what government programs we should have and what government programs we should abolish.

[/quote]

I agree that there is dispute, but this is my whole purpose for writing this. I think there is a specific and limited purpose for government, guided by what I layed out in the OP. Let’s take the things you listed (Department of Education, medicare,medicaid, social security, Dep.of transportation, or public roads). All of those are clear violations of what i said in the opening post. They all have nothing to do with one individual interfering with the self-interests of another individual. IMO, the only case that could be made for any of those things is for some sort of government education program (NOT the Dept of Education as it currently is). I could envision a government-funded education program for small children. And my justification for this is that small children should not be responsible for making their way through school from the age of 1 - ~14.

[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]

So by justify government with #1, you are basically saying that individuals should not interfere with the self interests of anothers EXCEPT for the Government. You are basically giving government the role to interfere with other’s self interests.

[/quote]

This is not what i am saying. I think the government has the right to get involved, and use force, if one individual is interfering with the self-interests of another individual. That is NOT the same thing as “giving the government the role to interfere with other’s self-interests.”

8

JH, what definition of government are you using?

9

The government is comprised of individuals. So it is giving individuals the power to interfere in the affairs of individuals who are interfering with other individuals. We must look to the law to decide whether people are being interfered with. The government monopolizes the law. This means that the government decides whether people are or are not interfereing in the affairs of others.

10

The role of government is identically equal to the role of Mafia. The two words are synonyms.

Clayton -

11

Services are far more efficient and productive in the market. If I got you to admit that these services can be provided by the market, why are you essentially giving government a role in which it is not necessary?? Why do you reject efficiency and productivity in favor of Government?

I’ll skip your second point because you do not answer the question on how limited government is because I still think there will be dispute over which programs are legit and which are not, even if you hold rule #1 as true.

This is not what i am saying. I think the government has the right to get involved, and use force, if one individual is interfering with the self-interests of another individual. That is NOT the same thing as "giving the government the role to interfere with other’s self-interests.
[/quote]

I do not think so. What I said initially is exactly what you are saying BUT before I answer to why i say that, let me ask you, do you accept the Misesian praxeology framework?

12

[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]

Services are far more efficient and productive in the market. If I got you to admit that these services can be provided by the market, why are you essentially giving government a role in which it is not necessary?? Why do you reject efficiency and productivity in favor of Government?

[/quote]

I haven’t rejected it yet. But it has yet to be explained to me how law enforcement, a court system, or national defense would work without government.

[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]

I’ll skip your second point because you do not answer the question on how limited government is because I still think there will be dispute over which programs are legit and which are not, even if you hold rule #1 as true.

[/quote]

I don’t see why you are skipping this point. I explained (not in incredible detail, for obvious reasons, i.e. it was a ~300 word post) how a limited government would work, and the framework for what it would be allowed to do and not allowed to do. Yes, there would be disputes, and…?

[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]

I do not think so. What I said initially is exactly what you are saying BUT before I answer to why i say that, let me ask you, do you accept the Misesian praxeology framework?

[/quote]

What you initially said is not what i’m saying. "I think the government has the right to get involved, and use force, if one individual is interfering with the self-interests of another individual. That is NOT the same thing as “giving the government the role to interfere with other’s self-interests”

Example of what I said: one individual is interfering with the self-interests of another individual = one individual going up to another individual on the street in New York City, taking his/her bag and possessions, and causing him/her physical injury.

Example of what you said: giving the government the role to interfere with other’s self-interests = government fixing prices, government-mandated health insurance, the gov’t taking money via taxes from one person and giving to another in the form of welfare, unemployment, medicare, industry subsidies.

I do not know the Misesian praxeology framework.

13

Here i describe government as a group of individuals who

  • take money/resources via taxes from the larger group of individuals in a society/country
  • create laws
  • enforce laws
  • provide national defense

Are you asking how the individuals in the government got to be in that place?

14

The only use of government that i think would be “lost” is the aspect that claims to be public good.

You can divide all government functions that do not make money in to two categories:

  1. Those departments or services that without the state would not make money and only exist because of the state.

  2. Those departments or services that without the state would not make money and it is a shame that it is not economically viable, because there is a demand for it and it would never be viable ie the department or services runs at a loss.

The other type of government service or department is one that would exist without the state and it would make money and there would be competition and demand and supply would be met.

That being said, although i am for complete privatisation, I still think that are a few functions of the state that could be retained through a form of universal agreement that would exist outside the state. But that would be through civilised means and would not be without problems. Those functions are:

  1. Protection of property for conservation purposes, ie the designation of land “not for use”. Now I know there are problems with this even with the state. But in an anarchist society land would be used for market purposes and it is likely that conservation land would be used as well.

  2. Although i know that the market would deal with people within a free market who decided to not pay for rubbish collection services and allowed their rubbish to build up on their property. By neighbouring property owner’s suing the owner for excessive smell and health hazards to their property. A more civilised approach could be formulated. Like when you move in to a private complex of houses and the lease says you have to dispose of your rubbish a certain way. Well people within a larger region could make such agreements. You would still get the odd few that would not comply, but that would be far less than if you just allowed all the people to choose. As poor people might not prioritise rubbish collection. But if it was a part of their property lease they might have to. Just a slight grey area when it comes to socially positive agreements across wide areas. Could or would these sorts of agreements exist without a state and within a free market?

As for the services that you mentioned in the op. I would much prefer a free market in police and court systems and roads.

15

I asked for your definition of government. I can accept “the institution that taxes”. Your other three points are not a part of the definition. It just happens to be the case that right now the institution that taxes is also the institution that creates and enforces laws and provides national defense. But this need not be the case. These things can and ought to be provided without taxation too. In other words, there is no role for government at all, not even dealing with the issues in your category #1.

16

Just like any other business in the market…

I will argue that point but even if I hold your point as true…All governments grow over time and often reject their initial principals.

Alright, you do not know praxeology, which is fine, if you want to read up on it, the first few pages of MES is an excellent source.

But your first rule states:

individuals should not interfere with the self-interests of other individuals

But as praxeology suggests, a Government is just a group of individuals… to say that Governments act is absurd because only specific individuals in the government act. To reject praxeology is to reject Austrian Economics, so I am going to assume you hold praxeology as true. So :

#1 : individual should not interfere with the self-interests of another individual

#2: Government (atleast in the form that you are talking about) is a group of individuals

Conclusion : Government should not interfere with the self interests of others.

To say otherwise is to say that individuals in the government have a right to interfere w/ the self interests of others. Unless you can refute my conclusion

17

[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]

Just like any other business in the market…

[/quote]

I’m not claiming it is impossible. I just don’t understand how it would work, or how it is the same as another good/service in a market. With a police department, let’s say there are 200 people in a given location. And only 100 decide to pay for this service. How does a police department only protect 100 people, and not the other 100? With a court system, if there is a dispute between two people who use different private courts, how does it get settled? Or if one person does not subscribe to a private court?

[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]

Conclusion : Government should not interfere with the self interests of others.

[/quote]

I agree with this. Don’t you think there are differences between the following statements?

1: “Government should interfere with the self-interests of others” (i don’t agree with this)

2: “Government should interfere with individuals who are interfering with the self-interests of others” (i agree with this)

Key point is self-interests. In statement 2, the government is NOT interfering with self-interests of a person. They are interfering with a person who has taken action to intefere someone else’s self-interests

18

“There is no role for government at all…” What does this really mean? Does it mean that the services I listed could be provided by a market?

If so, that is not the debate. Just because it’s possible does not explain that it is better. My point is that public goods are better provided by the government. Just by saying that a market could provide them (which i admit i don’t understand how it would work) does not explain that it is necessarily better. Again, i’m not saying that i am 100% convinced that the government must provide these things. But you act as if stating that a market is able to provide a public good proves that it would necessarily be better then the government. (and i believe that almost all goods are better provided by the market, with the exception of public goods).

I think the issue is that i just don’t understand how private courts and police systems would function. And maybe it would take too long to explain in a post. If someone has a good resource for how private courts and police systems AND national defense would work without a government, please feel free to post.

19

If so, that is not the debate. Just because it’s possible does not explain that it is better. My point is that public goods are better provided by the government. Just by saying that a market could provide them (which i admit i don’t understand how it would work) does not explain that it is necessarily better.

How do you define if a good or service is provided “better” by the government verses the market? In the market producers make what consumers are willing to pay for. If a producer can’t get enough customers to voluntarily pay him for his product, then the product doesn’t get produced.

Now you’re claiming that the amount of product produced by free actors in the market isn’t enough. But compared to what? Compared to if customers were forced to subsidize production of the product? Then of course more will be produced. The “better” product that is produced when government forces people to pay for its production is entirely arbitrary; it’s just based on some outside observer’s subjective valuation that the market isn’t producing as much as the observer thinks should to be produced.

For reading on how a private legal and defense system could work I recommend:

20

Do you think you are the first to raise these questions? Np, of course not…and your concerns have been answered in articles, found on this site.

Of course there are differences in the sentences but rule #1 does not mean sentence #2, it means sentence #1, unless you can somehow use rule #1 and another premise to conclude that “Government should interfere with individuals who are interfering with the self-interests of others,” your conclusion is invalid because it would not follow your premise.

The only way I can see you getting sentence #2 from Rule #1 is if you exempt Government from Rule #1, so they can enforce it. But then that raises the a whole different debate on whether or not there should be exemptions.