Ideal government principles

[padren]

We have an interesting mix of views on the role of government, so I thought I'd start a thread on the topic, to try and better understand where (at a base) most people are coming from.

 

 

A government seems responsible to govern conduct to protect people from each other and at times, themselves, and at times steer the "shape" of a society to protect the "moral integrity" of the whole or at least provide incentives/disincentives to things we consider generally beneficial. At it's loosest it seems to be that the guiding principle for new laws is "popular consent, without gross infraction to case law or constitutional rights" where there isn't a huge burden to prove the need for a law, unless it's strongly opposed by a large enough minority that can either point out unintended conflicts with existing laws or constitutional infractions. Of course some societies are very authoritarian and feel entirely entitled to restrict just about any conduct with the goal of having any desired effect.

 

 

Overall though: what is everyone's thoughts on how a government should work when it comes to law?

 

What aspects should be national, state, or simply private and what principles should guide the creation of laws?

 

 

My personal view, is that laws governing conduct should have a pretty heavy burden in excess of popular appeal: if a law inhibits any liberty, there should be a demonstrable harm that it protects against to warrant the infringement. On the outside of what should be allowable would be say, DUI laws in which a driver has actually done no harm but is considered at risk of causing harm to the point that driving while impart is actually a form of reckless endangerment. To me it's a good example of what is a fringe case that can be considered acceptable. I say "can be" because "impaired" is such a subjective term - we go with "0.08 blood alcohol level" without any real derivation for individual capacity and have zero tolerance for actual literal level of impairment, and if we decided "0.02 could save more lives" it would be easy to slide towards that, without proving such drivers are genuinely reckless. At the same time I support DUI laws because there actually is a correlation there and there is a point when driving is reckless which should be legally restricted.

 

I have less appreciation for laws that claim say, drug use can lead to some portion of the users becoming criminals, and since crime is harmful we should regulate all potentially "dangerous" drugs. I personally find that connection too loose and unfairly bunches all drug users into one group much the way "anti-gun" people may bunch irresponsible gun owners in with responsible ones.

 

Those views are I guess generally considered libertarian, but I don't agree with all libertarian "small government" arguments so I tend to call myself a "social libertarian" to distinguish that those views apply to laws that govern social behavior.

 

When it comes to the other side - execution of laws and their organization, I don't have much reservation about the government being involved and don't feel that the free market is always better.

Fire, police, military, education, and in my case I even think government should be heavily involved in health care coverage, so I definitely believe in a much larger government than most libertarians.

 

To me the health care issue is the hardest to deal with, because on the one hand I respect and even feel it's worth defending a person's right to self determination, even if it includes the belief that they have the right to gamble if they will live or die on the choice of having no coverage to cut costs in the short term to allow some opportunity they feel they could not otherwise shoot for. I say to myself, "who am I to tell that person that because they are born here, they don't have that freedom and will be forced to pay for a service they would choose not to?" I can't say health care is a right but it does seem to feel like a duty similar to being obligated to aid people in distress at sea - which is also a part of maritime law if I recall correctly.

With the health care system the way it is, I genuinely feel though a lot of people end up at the short end who we should help, and that in the end the only way to help that vast majority of people that this freedom may have to be sacrificed. I don't like it and would prefer a better way, but I'd rather go to a "everyone pays" system within the next 5 years than have 5 more years exploring other options that all fail and continue the same harm that we've seen in the past.

 

I am not too "scared" of government involvement in the processes we have to make life easier and generally think they are not much more than extensions of the way the military or police services aid the general welfare - and I trust the free market a little less in many ways when it comes to essential services that need to be very stable in times of extreme crisis.

 

I am scared of any government involvement that does exceed the basic tenants I mentioned above regarding the infraction of liberties without demonstration of harm by inaction, but I think with those principles we can do quite well. We are pretty proud of our military among other government programs - so I don't feel too concerned as long as social engineering isn't part of the scheme.

 

 

 

Anyway, those are my thoughts, but I am really curious what other people find to be "ideal government principles" and what range government should be allowed, and on what grounds that range should be warranted. I have my bias, but if someone feels that "morality" can be legislated I am genuinely interested in the basis and what general factors would govern that sort of authority.

 

So whatever you believe - share your thoughts, and the basis of how you feel those ideals work.

[iNow]

Interesting thoughts. I think you'll find many people agree with you on a number of them regardless of their overall "bent." I need to better consider my own position before responding further (plus, I'm at work right now, so limited in composition resources...).

[tomgwyther]

Nice post, gives one plenty to think about.

I'll try to keep it brief as 'philosophy and my random thoughts are not science'

 

IMHO, a good basis for law making within government would be to start with the united nations universal declaration of human rights. I feel the the UDHR is to law what prime numbers are mathematics; a foundation which you can start from and conversely refer back to.

Another good starting from/referring to point would be the ideas the founding fathers of the USA. Those guys really hit the nail on the head when it came to how to make a great country with a near utopian governmental system, sadly the likes of Washington, Paine, Jefferson, Salomon, and Franklin are probably spinning in their graves right now.

 

I'm all for the free market, but it must be within guidelines and government watchdogs e.g. the monopolies commission, the office of fair trading etc.

 

Exceptions to this though would be services such as police, fire dept, coast guard, education, certainly healthcare and definately money supply.

I include healthcare because - living in England - the idea that healthcare isn't available to everyone; free at the point of delivery is almost inconceivable.

Having no universal healthcare seems as odd to me as a fire department which only puts out house fires for those who have the right insurance policy, or put the fire out, then send you the bill.

 

I also metioned money supply as in recent months it's been made demonstratavley obvious that allowing private institution any degree of control over the issuance and supply of money within an economy can lead to an exponential problem which the government can do little to stop.

 

With regard to tax and welfare, I'd be of the opinion that each gives to the state only what they can afford and each takes from the state only what they need. This idea too has sadly gone a bit wonky.

 

 

references

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

 

http://www.foundingfathers.info/

[Mr Skeptic]

IMO, the government's responsibilities are largely to counter the failings of the free market.

1) To pass, repeal, and ensure enforcement of laws. Laws should be limited by a guideline, see the following points

2) To protect peoples' rights and liberties. IMO, a minimum amount of income/employment is also necessary, to prevent people from being effectively slaves.

3) To collect money (tax) to pay for public goods and services (and thereby avoid the free rider problem where most people refuse to pay for a useful public service because someone else will, which results in terrible funding and quality for said services. This is a failing of the free market for public services).

4) To account for externalities, either by regulation or (better IMO) by tariffs and subsidies, so long as the externality is large enough to. (externalities are when a product, service, or activity affects others not involved in the transaction. For example, your house's appearance affects the value of your neighbors' houses. The free market cannot account for externalities, so results in inefficiency)

5) To ensure protection for consumers from misinformation or lack of information. Ensuring that information from a regulatory commission is included with the product (and visible, especially for safety concerns) may suffice.

6) Preventing monopolistic behavior.

[ecoli]

IMO, the government's responsibilities are largely to counter the failings of the free market.\

 

And what counters government failing the free market?

 

edit: What I mean is who stops it when government breaks up beneficial (efficient) monopolies, goes overboard with needless consumer safety regulation (AKA becomes a nanny state), props up inefficient businesses with subsidies, preventing cheap goods from entering the country (hurting consumers) because special interest groups - like industry reps - lobby for protectionism rather than staying competitive, wastes money paying for 'public goods' that either aren't needed would be irrelevant if they didn't exist?

 

I think your image - and correct me if I'm wrong - of government as the benevolent provider is laughable. Far more often, the government is about serving private, special interests at the expense of the public good.

Edited April 7, 2009 by ecoli

[Mr Skeptic]

I think your image - and correct me if I'm wrong - of government as the benevolent provider is laughable. Far more often, the government is about serving private, special interests at the expense of the public good.

 

The answer is in the thread title: Ideal government.

 

Do you have a better idea of how to fix the failings of the free market that I linked to? And no, letting the free market solve it is not the solution, since in this case it is the problem. Maybe you could make a point that ignoring those problems is preferable than asking a non-ideal government to fix them. Still, some of these things are necessary, such as law enforcement.

[padren]

The answer is in the thread title: Ideal government.

 

Do you have a better idea of how to fix the failings of the free market that I linked to? And no, letting the free market solve it is not the solution, since in this case it is the problem. Maybe you could make a point that ignoring those problems is preferable than asking a non-ideal government to fix them. Still, some of these things are necessary, such as law enforcement.

 

Actually, I mean more "Ideal government principles" which is not the same as principles for an ideal (ie, impossibly perfect) government.

 

The US put a lot of emphasis on individual rights, considering the atmosphere it was born in, that is quite understandable, but there was a lot of subsequent debate on how everything from economics to defense should be handled. I believe Madison and Adams had some great conflicts over defense in particular, and there were many other areas of contention that made early republic politics pretty exciting.

 

 

Essentially I think we have some pretty good original ideals for civil liberties, though I wonder how much the US currently leans too much toward "nanny laws" for my liking.

When it comes to other aspects of government, it seems things get pretty gray pretty fast on what principles people feel should be the guiding values behind laws.

 

Most agree we have a duty to protect our territories and states with a federally supported armed forces. Some feel we should protect people from the ravages of poverty in certain situations to varying degrees and in varying situations. Many feel we have a duty to protect our fellow citizens from threats to their health in addition to threats of hostile nations. The more you protect people, the more you have to inhibit liberties and the less people are responsible for their actions - which is why there's such a rub against the libertarian principles of individual liberties.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And what counters government failing the free market?

 

edit: What I mean is who stops it when government breaks up beneficial (efficient) monopolies, goes overboard with needless consumer safety regulation (AKA becomes a nanny state), props up inefficient businesses with subsidies, preventing cheap goods from entering the country (hurting consumers) because special interest groups - like industry reps - lobby for protectionism rather than staying competitive, wastes money paying for 'public goods' that either aren't needed would be irrelevant if they didn't exist?

 

This is definately nasty business. Some monopolies should not be broken up, yet others should be and often exist because of shifting government regulations.

Subsidies and preventing cheap goods is also an issue, though it does disturb me to think of how vulnerable a nation this size is to the whims of foreign nations that produce goods we no longer produce ourselves.

 

 

I think your image - and correct me if I'm wrong - of government as the benevolent provider is laughable. Far more often, the government is about serving private, special interests at the expense of the public good.

 

I also agree about special interest groups and lobbyists, but isn't that due to the abdication of our duty as citizens to remain informed and apply strong, organized pressure on government officials?