Posted by
Playful Walrus on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 3:01:38 PM
Most things have their time, place, and purpose.
Often, when libertarians, conservatives, and anyone in favor of “limited government” says that the government should not be doing a particular thing, some people respond with confusion and worry, anger, or any other number of negative emotions. Breathless, they ask, “But don’t you think it’s a good thing for kids to receive an education? …for people to have homes? …for people to have transportation? …for people to have enough healthy food to eat? …to take care of our elders? Don’t you think it is a good thing for people to have health insurance?”
This kind of response belies a thinking that people are incapable of producing and exchanging, of serving others, or finding solutions without government control or assistance. Some of these people act as if nothing would ever get done, as if people are so incapable and careless that they won’t seek to fulfill their needs and those of their loved ones, or that only the rich would ever get what they need.
There are many services – many programs and projects of various levels of government – that we think are good, at least in concept or goal if not execution or all results. However, we do not believe that is the government’s role, or in some cases the federal or state governments’ role, to provide these things to people. There are several reasons for this.
First, if we’re going to govern through a constitution, then we need to be consistent about doing so. We do have a Constitution, and it limits the federal government to only doing things specifically assigned within the text of the Constitution. All other things are supposed to be handled by “the people” or the states. It isn’t the role of the federal government to do these things, and there are reasons the Constitution was written this way, as I note next.
Second, the government can only accomplish things by force. The money to do things is forcibly taken from some people; if participation in a program is mandatory, this reduces personal liberty and increases centralized government power over our lives. We have forced association and support instead of voluntary association and exchanges.
Third, a monopolistic entity like the federal government is often inefficient and ineffective. It is not possible for something being run from Washington, D.C. to really know the needs of all of the people. Even for things that government should be involved with, the founders of our nation saw the benefit of letting the states come up with their own solutions, so that they can be examined and compared as well as tailored to the population of that state.
Fourth, this can increase dependency of an impersonal central bureaucracy instead of self-reliance, personal responsibility, and personal accomplishment.
The concept of roles has been largely lost in our present-day society. Roles bring certain duties, obligations, and boundaries. Traditionally, men and women have had certain roles. Husbands and wives have had certain roles. Mothers and fathers have had certain roles. Friends and family... religious congregations... charitable and civic organizations have had certain roles. Teachers and students have had certain roles. Employers and employees have had certain roles.
Despite what some people would have us believe, men are men – they are not women. Men can be sons, brothers, husbands, or fathers. They can’t be daughters, sisters, wives, or mothers – only women can. Unless you live in a messed-up family, your spouse is not your sibling, and neither is your child. As a parent, you have a certain role to that child, and while you should love them, your role isn’t to be their friend, at least not while they are growing up.
I bring all of this up because my point is that the government is not your parent. It is not your sibling. It is not your church. It isn’t there to hold your hand. Its role is to protect you from others, not yourself. It is there to prevent crime and prosecute criminals, not ensure equality of outcomes or that you have high “self-esteem” or that someone else pretends to like you and everything you do.
There are many things that I think are good, but it isn’t the government’s role to provide them to me.
As a husband, I can tell you it is nice to wake up to some lovin’. But suppose I wake up to find that the person “lovin’” me is not my wife, but some neighbor I barely know? I had been enjoying myself, so what is the problem? The problem is, it is not that person’s role to do that. Some of you might like this scenario and wouldn’t be bothered, especially if you are or have ever been the Governor of New Jersey or New York, but you get the idea. That’s one of my wife’s roles, not my neighbors.
My dog is my pet, not dinner.
We all have our roles, and with many things, it simply isn’t the federal government’s role.