Black_Rose, can you answer my question in post #63?
Who or what do you think “the government” is? What makes up “the government?” Who is in charge of “the government?”
I have to go now… will be back in a few hours:
But this may indirectly answer your questions from the perspective of normative political philosophy; it does not actually describe the current system of government. (This was from previous posts and I have the file on Word):
Socialists see poverty, not as the result of individual failure, but injustices caused by social and economic phenomenon amendable to amelioration through state intervention. Socialists seek to govern by the principle salus populi suprema lex esto (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) by identifying with interests of the massive proletariat who can be rural peasants, urban factory workers, or, in the case of the developed economics in the modern age of globalization, workers in the service sector. The justification for abandoning the spirit of voluntarism is one of pragmatism and utilitarianism since one cannot realistically expect most people to selflessly surrender their economic surplus to serve the needs of the poor. While humble and sincere voluntarism are morally commendable, it is unrealistic to expect that these means can provide satisfactory funding for social agendas even if it is assumed that voluntarism is more efficient than state programs.
In order to grant the right of a decent and secure standard of living for its citizens, a regime of redistributive taxation is necessary. This right would not be contingent on the condition of the labor market or the availability of generous charitable contributions. Since this becomes a right, it therefore removes the stigma of accepting aid as it is acknowledged as an entitlement not the consequences of personal inferiority and inadequacy. Government-financed programs providing “a decent and secure standard of living” include universal health care, social security, free education, and unemployment insurance. Therefore, successful governance will be defined by using the public largess to efficiently provide public goods efficiently and justly because the incentives of the free market do not provide adequate motivation for one to do so. The availability of social capital may limit this approach since it is only successful in countries with a common culture and homogenous ethnic groups such as the Scandinavian welfare states.
Friedrich von Hayek gloomily predicted the resurgence of serfdom as an undesirable consequence of an expanded state because it violated the liberty of its citizens by extracting resources through taxation. But unlike feudal lords of medieval times who used their economic surplus for conspicuous consumption while neglecting the needs of their serfs, the state would spend the money in the interest of public welfare.
In order for socialism to be successful, a culture of secular bureaucracy is needed where administrative competence and technical aptitude is highly valued since these are necessary to manage the complex affairs of the state in order to satisfy the people’s desires. The members of this bureaucracy are distinguished by their intellectual work in contrast to the masses earn their living through manual labor. The members of this bureaucracy are not motivated by private economic gain, a desire to generate an ostentatious display of “charity”, or from a humble, selfless love of their neighbor, but from the self-gratification they derive from exercising their technical competence to achieve the end of administering a prosperous state. This division of labor is even legitimized and acknowledged; for instance, the German Democratic Republic’s Coat of Arms features compass, a hammer, and a grains of wheat respectively symbolizing the union of the intelligentsia, the factory workers, and farmers providing for the common welfare. But this detachment would acceptable since it would be narrower than the wealth inequality inherent in capitalism and free market caused by an asymmetry of market power by those owning capital and possessing highly-demanded skills. This culture diverges from the American perception of government and bureaucracy as a cumbersome, inefficient manifestation of “big government” that unjustly trifles with the liberty of its citizens.
One advantage this approach is that is able to effectively raise funds through taxation or by issuing sovereign debt as it credit worthy entity although the latter can be undermined by a history of default resulting in the bond market requiring a higher premium in the form of high interest rates. In addition, because of its emphasis on bureaucratic and technical competence, the state has an ability process and assimilates information enabling it to understand the current circumstances and intervene effectively. This gives the state the unprecedented ability to coordinate resources on a scale that would be impossible through the free market or private charity.
