Forgive my rambling, but every once in a while it makes sense to try to think about the problem of government in a free society. What does it take for a society to be truly free? For me, it is the freedom to do whatever you may want, as long as it doesn’t stop others from doing so. I’ll use that as my definition of freedom for now. So what kind of government is consistent with freedom?
First, because enforcing policy necessarily requires voluntary agreement in a free society, there should be a reasonable level of agreement on any policy adapted by our central planners. To what extent people agree will depend on the issue. As these issues are defined more narrowly, we would expect agreement to be less and less likely. Likewise, as the issues under consideration for control are made more broad and general, the level of agreement becomes greater (e.g. We all agree government should provide defense. We just don’t all agree on the specifics).
You might have heard, for example, that we have just been approved to build a new base in Italy, apparently, to try to prevent “social unrest.” You know, people not agreeing with what their government is doing to them (note to self: Ask Obama what the hell this has to do with the security of the American people). We have hundreds of military bases in over 100 countries. Do Americans really want a new base in Italy right now? Can we really afford to give any more money to the military-industrial complex? (Shhh…I don’t think it really matters anymore what we want, but don’t call it a conspiracy!)
Because we all have very different views, needs, wants, and morals, Americans embody a very wide spectrum of opinion. We disagree on all sorts of things. But the key here is that we do have practical unanimity on some issues, like basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Even on some issues where people can all agree , like raising the average wage in the US, the methods for accomplishing this goal can vary wildly. Any given plan is likely to favor one group over another. And for every plan that favors group A over B, there will be a plan that favors B over A. The actual number of plans theoretically could be greater than the number of people under the direction of the central planners. So that even when we have unanimous agreement on one issue, in reality no plan can be said to be objectively better than any other.
And this is where we get to the punchline. Ultimately, if we are to pass the hypothetical plan to raise the average wage of Americans, some person or committee will have to decide, quite arbitrarily, on a specific plan. The government will have to decide who wins and who loses, and as we’ve seen for quite awhile now, those in power to make such decisions usually have money and power on their mind; not the “general welfare”.
The problem stems, in this example, from the fact that the policy in consideration was ends-based. It is not a general rule which must be followed by all, as is the case with laws concerning murder. Rather, it is focused on a specific end. This creates the need for specific groups to be mentioned in the policy. The planners creating this legislation can see its effects in advance. They use this foresight to please special interests (at the expense of some other group, of course). However, murder laws, for example, are not the same at all. None of the planners could possibly foresee what group will be affected by murder laws in advance. It is true, though it possibly sounds like a contradiction, to say that planners should not have any kind of foreknowledge of the effects of their plan on any specific groups. This does sound odd, but it is at the heart of why our planners have repeatedly failed over and over.
Furthermore, the arbitrary nature of such decisions will ultimately subvert the rule of law, which has always been the hallmark of a free society. We have seen in the last eight years, the effects that such a subversion can have. The rule of law, as opposed to the rule of men, is the natural consequence of the progression of societies from autocratic to democratic rule. It is the dividing line that separates the totalitarian states of the past from the more liberal states of the present. If we are to truly preserve the rule of law, policymakers must stop proposing ends-based policy. As we have seen, ends-based policies subvert the rule of law, have almost no chance for any kind of broad agreement from the people, and are used to please special interests at the expense of the general public.
Furthermore, the world is extremely complex, and understanding all of the interconnected and often conflicting goals of each of its inhabitants can never be achieved by any one man, let alone a committee of men. Eventually, policy decisions will always favor one group over another (due to the limited scope of the planners’ experience and knowledge), and the laws of economics are such that the favored group is bound to be smaller (so that each member of the losing group ends up “paying” a small amount, lest they revolt). Thus, ends-based policies have little chance of actually helping a majority of the people.
I sometimes wonder if people truly believe that its okay to have such a powerful executive as long as the guy in control is benevolent. As I mentioned earlier, the complexity of even the most basic structures of society, like the vast financial system, are such that no one man, woman, or committee could possibly effectively handle tweaking the system to what they perceive to be in the general interest. But even if we got someone that can manage such control, whose to say Americans will always vote for that person? In fact, the likelihood seems very small considering our past presidents. If we continue to give such power to our federal government, we will ultimately find ourselves one day serving under an autocracy and living in servitude to the ruling party and their elite friends (although I’m not totally convinced that isn’t more or less the case right now).
One would like to think that Obama does not fit this group. However, it is clear that Obama does not share this vision of how we may truly have a government by the people and a free citizenry protected by the rule of law. He has shown he has no interest in bipartisanship or truly listening to the ideas of both sides, neither of which seems to know anything about economics (Where have all the Austrians gone?). He had no problem voting against the overwhelming majority of Americans on the TARP. He favors ends-based policy, which is the enemy of the free society.
I’ve been rambling for long enough, I think. Time to get back to figuring out how I can use the new laws being passed to my advantage; at the expense of others, of course.