Assessing the best form of Government

[abucs]

Is there a way to harness the positives of big government without accumulating the negatives? I think the positives are universalism and reach but the negatives are control of the wealth and culture of the community leading to corruption and domination.

My thoughts.

I think there are good arguments for government in things like environmental laws, contract law, health and welfare coverage, policing/defense, currency, international diplomacy, immigration, property and civil legal rights / adjudication, etc.

On the other hand a big government tends to create corrupt political classes, a politically correct ethics that is then forced on the population and limits to freedom which can adversely effect economic progress and cultural growth and expression.

Or to put it in a nutshell - big government at its best can create universal health care and a dependable justice system and at its worst can take farms from white South African farmers, force people to speak certain pronouns and dispatch Jews into death camps. (Apologies for the crassness of that last example).

Can we have the best of big government while at the same time limiting its power to dominate the culture of the community and the strengths of capitalism?

I know things like democracy, the media and the justice system are supposed to be counters to the powers of government but they now seem to be inbuilt players of the political system.

I am sorry I have not really been able to articulate a vision but my post is seeking to do that by listening to others.

Thank you.

 

[Seeksadvice]

Universal healthcare is a sham. All healthcare is “rationed,” it’s just a question of how it’s rationed. Is it rationed by your ability to pay, or is it rationed by some bureaucrat (how much can you pay said bureaucrat, wink, wink).

RE South Africa - I wonder how long those stolen farms will continue to produce anything of any value.

Media = puppets of whatever view happens to insert enough money.

 

[abucs]

Universal healthcare is a sham.

I have to admit to having mixed opinions on this. I fully accept that the capitalist method is the best method for economic growth and economic growth is what creates areas that can best take care of the poor and sick. I also see that government redistributes wealth more than creates it and that there has to be some check on run away medical prices that is best done by some sort of user pay control.

On the other hand I come from Australia and the single payer universal health system works really well there. We have a great medical professional body, modern equipment and administration and it universally covers everyone. Of course it may be that we are a relatively small nation in numbers and yet enjoy the richness of the resources of as vast continent. Perhaps we are in a bubble compared to the rest of the world who are not able to afford the same system.

Still, I have to be honest and say it appears to work really well in Australia, at least at the moment.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Universal health care also works well in Canada and most European countries. The USA is the only western developed country not to have it, so in this sense it is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Arkansan]

I know things like democracy, the media and the justice system are supposed to be counters to the powers of government but they now seem to be inbuilt players of the political system.

Democracy just ensures that all officeholders will be skilled at touting their own virtues. It doesn’t limit government power in any way. The media is just the real power in a democracy (by definition).

 

[abucs]

Democracy just ensures that all officeholders will be skilled at touting their own virtues. It doesn’t limit government power in any way. The media is just the real power in a democracy (by definition).

Yes, I have to admit to having a real dislike for the media, maybe unhealthily so. I agree they have a big say in elections. I have to keep reminding myself that in the end “God is in charge”.

I think in theory democracy limits power because parties will be voted out if they overstep. The problem is that when both parties (in a two party system) are in agreement. together with the media and civil service, democratic voting loses much of its power.

In Australia we have a cynical saying - it doesn’t matter who you vote for, a politician always wins.

 

[MPat]

Is there a way to harness the positives of big government without accumulating the negatives? I think the positives are universalism and reach but the negatives are control of the wealth and culture of the community leading to corruption and domination.

I’d say you are looking for Subsidiarity. It’s one of the principles of Social Doctrine of the Church. As Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Origin and meanin) describes it:

Subsidiarity, understood in the positive sense as economic, institutional or juridical assistance offered to lesser social entities, entails a corresponding series of negative implications that require the State to refrain from anything that would de facto restrict the existential space of the smaller essential cells of society. Their initiative, freedom and responsibility must not be supplanted.

Thus, if both central and local government can do something, local government is to be preferred. If both government and non-governmental organisation or business can do something, government is not to be preferred. And so on.

I think there are good arguments for government in things like environmental laws, contract law, health and welfare coverage, policing/defense, currency, international diplomacy, immigration, property and civil legal rights / adjudication, etc.

First of all, you should separate “Central government” and “Local government”. Some of the things you listed can be at least partially delegated to local governments. There was a time when even defence was so delegated.

 

[abucs]

Yes this looks very interesting.

Is there any country where this is in place and what has been Subsidiarity’s track record?

In Australia we tended to start out with defined powers but over time the central government seems to take on more and more powers. I think this happens in part because of the power of central government holding the tax dollars and the tendency for the civil service and legal courts to want to simplify things through one set of laws and controls. My impression is that the US has the same problem. Perhaps there has to be a strong and ongoing recognition of the strengths of Subsidiarity and a stronger commitment to it in law?.

Another question would be which groups of people would oppose Subsidiarity in principle and what would their arguments be?

Thank you, this was the kind of thing I was looking for and I will have to do further reading.

 

[MPat]

Yes this looks very interesting.

Is there any country where this is in place and what has been Subsidiarity’s track record?

It is mentioned in EU law. For example, Treaty of Lisbon (signed in 2007 - EUR-Lex - 12007L/TXT - EN - EUR-Lex) has article 5 (Treaty of Lisbon/Article 1 - Treaty on European Union/Article 5 - Wikisource, the free online library) saying

The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

and

Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.

There’s also a “Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality” in the same treaty.

 

[J.S.C]

Universal healthcare is a sham. All healthcare is “rationed,” it’s just a question of how it’s rationed. Is it rationed by your ability to pay, or is it rationed by some bureaucrat (how much can you pay said bureaucrat, wink, wink).

RE South Africa - I wonder how long those stolen farms will continue to produce anything of any value.

Media = puppets of whatever view happens to insert enough money.

Health care is rationed in the United States too. Just by ability to pay.

Usually I’d be all for that – the market works great. But when we’re talking about health care, we need to think about the fact that people would literally die without access. We need to make it universal. Some things aren’t meant to be completely within the realm of the private sector.

 

[Maximilian75]

Because the US is doing all of those countries’ defense spending for them.

 

[Seeksadvice]

There is no universal healthcare. There are only “X” number of doctors, surgeons, etc. It is always rationed, that’s why I said: it’s either based on ability to pay or based on some bureaucrat (who may be bribed).

 

[KnightTemplar]

The best form of government would have to be the Holy American Empire. The Holy American Emperor would be crowned by the Pope in the National Basilica in Washington. A guy can dream

 

[Dan_Defender]

The big question is this: is health care a commodity to be bought and sold? or a person’s right regardless of income level?

 

[ltwin]

Democracy just ensures that all officeholders will be skilled at touting their own virtues. It doesn’t limit government power in any way. The media is just the real power in a democracy (by definition).

Democracy simply means the majority rules. Majorities can be tyrannical and evil. The best democracies, therefore, wisely realize 2 things:

First, you cannot have virtuous government unless the society itself is virtuous. Someone once said that people get the government they deserve, and that is especially true of democracies. Morally corrupt people will tend to vote for morally corrupt representatives.

Second, majorities must choose to limit their own power by establishing constitutions that limit government power and protect basic rights of the minority. For example, in the US, the majority decided they were going to respect religious freedom, so they added the 1st Amendment to the Constitution saying that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It was the majority who decided they were going to rule with restraint and respect minority rights.

But if you have a majority of people (whether in government or in society in general) who don’t want to restrain themselves, then no government system is going to be able to contain human selfishness and greed.

 

[dochawk]

Democracy simply means the majority rules. Majorities can be tyrannical and evil.

As the old saying goes:
Democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the election results.



hawk

 

[twf]

Interestingly, here in North America, from what I’ve read, the US started as a fairly decentralized union of states that favoured state rights. Canada started as a more centralized federation of provinces that favoured federal / central authority. Over time, the US federal government has increased as state governments have decreased in authority, while, conversely, the Canadian provinces have become increasingly autonomous. As an average Joe Canadian, I feel my provincial government is much more influential in my daily life than the federal government. I look to Victoria, BC, not distant Ottawa… a city so far away it might as well be in Europe.

 

[ltwin]

ltwin:

Democracy simply means the majority rules. Majorities can be tyrannical and evil.

As the old saying goes:
Democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the election results.



hawk

Yes, which is why the best form of government in my opinion is not a “pure democracy” but what is called a liberal democracy, which is democracy based on classical liberal principles:

• rule of law
• free and fair elections
• separation of powers
• respect and protection of broadly defined human rights, civil rights and civil liberties

 

[ltwin]

Interestingly, here in North America, from what I’ve read, the US started as a fairly decentralized union of states that favoured state rights.

When we declared independence from Great Britain, each of the 13 states was essentially a sovereign nation united in a military alliance. Our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was so decentralized that Congress could not even tax, it could only ask the state governments for money.

The US was about to collapse through bankruptcy, so we got the present Constitution in 1789 which established a federal government that was superior to state governments (though technically both Federal and state governments share sovereignty). But state governments still had the major role in people’s lives until the 20th century.

The New Deal response to the Great Depression expanded the Federal government’s role in daily life to levels never seen before, and this has only gotten stronger as time went on.

 

[Arkansan]

The majority of people will do whatever they’re told to. Do you imagine that the faith of 16th century Spain was stronger than that of England? Or that the American people were more homicidal in 1980 than 1970?

A democracy is just a system where the media are the real power. Democracies for this reason tend to be corrupt, since those with power have little chance of being held responsible, even in people’s minds, for bad governance (even an absolute ruler will be at least resented if things are going bad, no one will blame any particular journalist for the country’s ills).