The Role of Government: The Discussion that Defines all of the Others

- The Role of Government: Finding a Middle -

There is an interesting division occurring in modern politics. The screeches of the Trump fans and the deafening clapping of the Hillary camp harmonize to an identical tune. This tune is the song of big government. Big government, as anyone who has spent enough time in the company of Libertarians should know, is a devil term that is thrown about at seemingly everything. What does it mean? Why are these people angry at the thought of government intervention? These are very reasonable questions to ask, but the opposite questions are just as valid. The division taking place is now between Libertarians, in addition to the Never Trump movement, and the advocates of Trump the strongman and Hillary the neo-con. At the center of this debate sits the role of government. Big government vs small government and the policies surrounding both theories of government.

The reason that this division is so fiercely fought over is that the issue is often rather binary in nature. Just as it is impossible for a Christian to explain the significance of Lent to an Atheist, it is equally impossible for small government advocate to explain to a big government advocate the principles of non-intervention and faith in the individual. Thus, a chasm of misunderstanding arises between people on opposing sides of this. Small government advocates are often profoundly mistrustful of the government. This is a good attitude as, governments throughout history have been corrupt, self-serving, and tyrannical. It seems prudent to examine all proposals and legislation carefully for signs of corruption and tyranny. Those on the big government field usually see and respect these concerns, but often cite security and abusers of lack of regulation as evidence to push such legislation forward. The role of government, to big government advocates, is a government which works for them, instead of getting out of the way. Those on the Trump side see the government as a facility to rid them of unwanted immigration and to 'win' on trade in order to bring jobs back. Those on the Hillary side see government in the same light but at a different angle. They favor the use of the government to force business to operate as they see fit and to give aid to those in the population who need (or simply want) it. Additionally, both sides see America as a set of groups, and the poll numbers reflect group representation in each of these candidates. Either way, small government advocates recoil to such views of the government. Such people do not want regulation nor bureaucracy and focus instead on individual rights. Unfortunately, the far polarization of these views exposes unseen potential to find a middle ground. Below lies an extensive example which depicts the attempt to find a middle ground while considering viewpoints from both sides:

Upon investigation, it seems as though there can be a united effort to find a middle ground on various issues. To preface this specific set of roles for the government, it must be understood that people must work for the betterment of themselves and ought to be expected to succeed in spite of poor government policies at all times. This being said, people are not unaffected by the government, or its policies, therefore the government should stay out of people's way where it is prudent and intervene when necessary to promote the well-being of its citizens.

Part 1: Taxes

Taxes are the lifeblood of government. Without taxes, there are very little sources of revenue for a market economy. State Capitalism, which thankfully has been almost completely phased out, would utilize national resources to run factories and produce goods. The profits of the resulting trade would go into state coffers and be used to pay salaries, expand factories, etc. Ironically, communism and socialism make heavy use of State Capitalism, so it really is fortunate that taxes are a mainstay of governments in market economies. This being said, the small government advocate despises taxes while the big government advocate views taxes as necessary and sometimes good. Those who view taxes as a way to redistribute wealth have no place in this proposed middle, as a middle cannot be achieved between those who view taxes as theft and those who would utilize it in a larger agenda. Taxes thus should be utilized in a minimal sense to fund what is absolutely necessary and be cut at every opportunity. Necessity includes baseline defense spending, various programs that protect the economy (more detail in part 2), and infrastructure maintenance. Ideally, those who support larger amounts of taxes for the purpose of paying down debt and funding vital programs will be brought on board by tax cuts with the purpose of cutting spending on the military, phasing out social security and other non-discretionary spending, and cutting waste. Refer to the charts below:

As far as what tax model to have, a flat tax is optimal for small business, but not everyone always sees one as fair. The progressive tax discourages class ascension but is seen as more fair. And, the regressive tax is only used by evil empires that have it out for peasants. This poses a problem, a small government advocate would obviously take a flat tax, as it is the most simple and requires no army of lawyers to interpret it. On the other hand, big government advocates typically want those who earn more money to "pay their fair share" in order to fund more government programs. This new middle must include such concerns. Fortunately, the base rate can be adjusted to a higher rate to generate needed government income. So, the optimal solution would be a flat tax which can be fair as well as efficient. A flat tax can be implemented to allow small businesses to flourish as well as allowing federal programs to continue unhindered. Though, as mentioned before, non-discretionary spending needs to be addressed, as well as wasteful spending.

Part 2: Maintaining Economic Interdependency 

An element that is often lost in modern discussions of economic issues is the idea of Economic Interdependency, which is the idea that everyone in an economy is connected. A computer, for instance, takes copper and silicon from mines, plastic from processing plants, electricity from various locations, led's and processors from manufacturing and much much more. All of the industries in an economy depend on each other. The discussions forget this by centering upon regulation and lack thereof. Always, the clamor is about regulation and freedom of the individual, when there is a delicate balance in our economy. As an example, the fishing industry and river rafting joints would suffer greatly if rivers were so polluted that they could catch fire. People who run camps, those who cut wood, and the industries dependent upon the well-being of forests are not helped by a destroyed environment. Therefore, the EPA has a role to perform in the economy. Such intervention is necessary. The issue is when the EPA has so many regulations and so much federal funding that they become an obstacle to business and a general pain. These are balances which must be struck. There is currently so much intervention that the business climate can feel like the rule of government offices. So comes the middle ground: regulations are great if they are efficient and not hinder some. The government has, as a result of too much spending and lobbying, become an obstacle to the success of some business. Because of Economic Interdependency, an obstacle to the success of one business becomes an obstacle to other businesses. Another issue is the idea that one's self-destruction has no effect on anybody else. At the Libertarian Debate, Austin Peterson was asked a question about drugs: this was his response. He was booed by people because he said that children oughtn't to be sold hard drugs. How can this be? How can people so rabidly defend this "right?" People who dope themselves into a numbness to life and who find themselves in dead-end jobs fit for teenagers hurt everyone. The single person will obviously not have much of an effect, but trends and occurrences happen by the millions. It may not matter to anyone that this one pot-head threw his potential to the dirt and worked in retail for the rest of his days. But, when millions of people could be allowed to do so legally, this has an impact. Donald Trump seems to think that we thrive off of factory jobs which require one standing in the same place for eight hours a day, but these jobs have been automated. The ceiling of one's potential is ever higher in this modern job market, and those who choose the bottom hurt the competing power of this country. Small government advocates cite the individual's right to trash his/her life in whatever capacity that they wish. The big government advocates cite the individual's responsibility to his/her country, economy, and family. There must be a middle. There are some activities which are morally questionable, but which do no visible damage to the economy. So, while people load up at McDonald's they may be shortening their lifespans, they aren't often reducing their work efficiency or throwing away their own potential. It is a role of government to preserve, as much as possible, the environment that achieves maximum economic efficiency through preserving Economic Interdependency, but not to get so involved in people's lives that it spends millions of dollars getting kids to eat salad. 

For more on Economic Interdependency:

Cournot, Antoine (1838). Researches into the Mathematical Theory of Wealth. Translated by Nathaniel Bacon (1898).

Part 3: Relegating Issues, both Social and Local

By now, it should be obvious that the United States is a nation divided. The polls show it, the twitter mobs echo it, and the president confirms it all. The US is divided by ideology more than by race, privilege, class, etc. The only reason that people are able to be so easily played against each other by race-baiters is because of this difference in ideology. Last election cycle, the popular vote was won by 5 million votes with a vote count of 127 million. Such a result was close. Very close. 

It can be therefore reasoned that states have general ideological leanings. Here, there is an interesting contradiction in the small government camp. Should states be left to determine their own policies if it gave states the opportunity to create big government solutions? The answer varies from person to person, but generally, a state-level solution is preferred because of one's closeness to the solution. It is far easier to arrange a meeting with your state senator or major than the president, for instance. Big government advocates, on the other hand, have a greater predisposition to favoring federal intervention on issues like marriage, abortion, guns, education, and various social programs. Autonomy works because it simply does not matter the quality, common sense, test-ability, or reliability of a program or law if it is forced upon people. Those people on whom such policies are enforced will seem like tyranny. Therefore, local decisions must be given precedent to broad-stroke decisions for the whole nation. As recompense for their loss of federal power, the big government camp can be free to advocate for big government policies within their state where more big government advocates exist. Additionally, A single glove does not fit all hands, so a middle here would consist of leaving states more autonomy to choose a social policy, financial policy, and to create statewide programs. The purpose of this middle is to allow each state to choose to be big or small government. The benefits of both can be weighed and policy changed, if necessary. There is importance in understanding that allowing people to be closer to the solution that they choose will not solve this nation's division problem. Minorities, women, and white men will not get along if they are constantly pitted against each other for political gain by these ideologies. This issue is far too large to be included in this entry; its brief inclusion here was simply a disclaimer against racial strife continuing in spite of greater local autonomy. Back to the issue, in most of the presidential primary debates of recent history, governors have consistently touted their great successes in each of their states. The idea is to allow these governors to continue to be accessible to their voting bases and to carry out their duty to such people. People, who will have more control over the levels of intervention that their government levies over them.

Subsequently, these proposals are by no means perfect, but to fight the ongoing division in this country, give them a mulling over. Division is everywhere, and the fight between libertarians and authoritarians is a necessary one. Keep in mind that political discourse can be enjoyable and friendly, especially since this is a battle which has ever-increasingly encompassed political discourse. There are views to be considered all around the spectrum. Libertarians, for the most part, are not worried about the government because they are paranoid tin-foil hatters. They hold legitimate fears about the power of government and its role in society. Authoritarians, in a likewise majority, are no fascists. They fear for the moral and economic fabric of this country and trust that a properly implemented government can tear down walls (or build them up, if that is the case). Regardless of one's view of the role of government, each side must be considered in the substance of the argument and not a summation of god and devil terms. This middle has been proposed partially as a simulation of considering multiple sides of this tedious but necessary argument and coming together to find a solution. Remember that it is possible to cross the chasm of these two vastly different views of the role of government. Make the extra effort to cross it, retreat from it, examine it as far as possible, and find a middle with those on the other side.

Congratulations on making it this far! Enjoy a comic: