Throughout the countless threads on this board concerning health care, conservatives have repeatedly opined that our government just shouldn’t be in the business of universal health care (but even amongst conservatives, very few are proposing to abolish Medicare). In their opinion, it’s not a legitimate government function.
This raises an issue which goes to the core of the liberal/conservative divide. What are the legitimate government functions, and what specific characteristics separates them from the illegitimate?
I would say there are no areas inherently legitimate or illegitimate. Certain laws or actions may be bad, or badly implemented, but there’s no area I can think of in which I would require or require the lack of governmental influence.
As a middle of the roader, my answer is that whatever the best solution is, is the best solution. Anything else is irrelevant. Living by mottos and creeds is silly in the face of reality. Reality just isn’t that cut and dried. The only practical limit on government is that it represent the public interest. If the public’s happy with it, the government’s fine enough to become micromanaging dictatorship that manipulates each of us and all of our decisions remotely from a centralized computer. The people could also all vote to abolish government entirely. If both of those are fully acceptable outcomes by US law, assuming that all the necessary amendments were properly ratified, maintaining that there’s some sort of real limit on what the government can do is silly.
That said, I don’t think that there should be government health care. I don’t think it’s the best long-term solution.
Well, I obviously have an opinion on this. And please note that I don’t aim to speak for all fiscal conservatives, and I’m sure that I in fact do not. Also please note that I don’t claim to have my philosophy worked out in all particulars, so please consider the below a work in progress.
I think that the legitimate activities of government are only those things with a more-or-less equal benefit for everyone. These are the things that would be difficult if not impossible to do without an entity with the power to force everyone to pay for them. Also, these are the types of things that any particular person cannot opt-out of–i.e., these are activities for which it is impossible for any particular citizen to not benefit from.
Because I believe that these are the only legitimate functions of government, I believe that the government has the obligation to engage in those functions (because engaging in those functions is the sole reason for the government to exist). I find that this second part (i.e., the government can’t do it unless the government is obligated to do it) helps clarify my thinking on whether something is a legitimate government function in the first place.
The two most obvious examples of legitimate government functions are (i) the military (i.e., protecting citizens from enemies outside the country and foreign invaders) and (ii) the police (i.e., protecting citizens from other citizens). Everyone benefits more-or-less equally from these activities, and citizens cannot individually opt out. Next, there are lots of things that are very much like the police (e.g., the fire department) or involve the same functions as the police (e.g., SEC rules on fraud, etc.).
On the other end of the spectrum are things that the government clearly shouldn’t be doing because they involve only a benefit for certain types of people, and government action is not necessary to provide that benefit. The easiest example for me on this is single-payer health care or government-provided (or paid-for) health insurance. I understand the argument that a healthy population is good for everyone, but providing health care to those that cannot pay for it is not the type of far-ranging benefit to all citizens that is necessary IMO for something to be a legitimate government function. It is very easy to opt-out (i.e., simply by paying for one’s own health care, through health insurance or otherwise).
In the U.S., it is the functions listed in the Constitution, as reinterated under the Tenth Amendment. The problem is how it is interpreted. For example the overarching interpretation of “interstate commerce” after the court-packing scheme or the legislation by pursestrings under “tax and spend” clause after South Dakota v. Dole or “public use” under the Kelo decision or right to abortion under a right to privacy under the auspices of the Eight Amendment.
If a federal judge can squint in the right light and read the Constitution a certain way, there is your legitimate function. The problem for many of us Federalists is that the interpretation almost always gives power to the federal government and almost never takes it away.
The most legitimate government function, at least, is to assist and enforce your duty to not harm other people. This means laws against theft and murder, laws against negligence, and things like police, fire department and vaccinations.
“Whatever the Constitution says” is, with due respect to those who’ve offered it, a tautological answer. The OP is clearly asking for an answer more fundamental than that; what do you think a Constitution should say?
To my mind the role of government should largely rest on those things that cannot be done by the citizenry acting of their own accord. For the most part, market failures. Obvious examples would be national defense, justice, law enforcement, transportation infrastructure, environmental regulation, amd the like.
Having said that, I’m no absolutist. Some things, to my mind. are clear cut market failures and must be done by government (e.g. national defense.) Some things have no good reason for government interference at all (e.g. grocery stores and food prices.) But there’s a lot in between. I think fundamental health insurance is a good and logical thing for government to be involved in, but also think there are aspects of health care the government should stay out of. Basic social welfare programs strike me as being an obvious market failure with a clear role for government, but the way they’re administered is often intrusive, ineffective, paternalistic and horribly wasteful. You’ve also got the case of naturally monopolistic business areas that wuld seem to be best delivered by private companies but that should be regulated by government. And then there’s the matter of enforcement of aspects of private trade, such as civil rights, workplace safety, food and drug safety, and the like.
In other words, there’s no clear cut answer, and as economics and experience reveal more answers I’m willing to change my take on different issues. In general, however, I default to the role of government being to do that which individuals cannot themselves do.
It’s not a tautological answer. I’m a practicalist. I don’t care about cleverness in the face of reality and practicality. Whatever the best solution by the most well-equipped person is that is available is the best solution by the most well-equipped person no matter how you cut it. Saying, “No, we don’t want that because it goes against these holy words that were written down by Ron Paul in 1971!” is just limiting yourself to secondary options for no sane reason.
Addendum to my previous post, but say we look at Rand Rover’s version where if there is public health care, it’s supported by only those who choose to pay for it and anyone who wants to go their own way is free to do so.
There’s two possible outcomes:
There’s not enough money in the system because most people opt out but those who need it. The result being that you have people being kicked out of hospitals, dying prematurely, etc. The result of that being that Michael Moore, Hollywood, the music industry, all the poor people, all the liberal intelligentsia, etc. all have super ammo for getting fully socialized health care in. By this path, you’ve ended up exactly where you didn’t want to. You might not care about the unnecessary deaths, but in a world where most people will, you will lose the battle.
Some large portion the population has a greater fiscal burden than the rest. The result being that those who have not opted into providing to charity begin to outperform those who did. Their children get into nicer schools, and get better jobs. Either everyone stops donating to charity until we get to scenario 1, or class conflict comes into it, Michael Moore, Hollywood, the music industry, all the charity givers, all the liberal intelligentsia, etc. each rail on you for being a bad person and how the system is broken and creating a class system, etc. and eventually get a bill passed making you pay your part. Quite likely, they’ll make you pay a greater part simply out of retribution. End result is that while you are free in the short term, in the long run you end up paying more.
I.e. so long as most of the world holds to charitable ideals and can be shamed into going along with those ideals, you’re screwed. Your better option is to accede to something you can stomach than to think that you’re going to convince half the planet to say “Fuck you” to the lazy and those who suck at planning ahead and saving up. If you honestly think you can do that, feel free to make the try, but I’d vote that you’re just playing into their hands.
Many of the things I see being labeled “not legitimate” by conservatives seem completely legitimate…although I do realize that a segment of the population might want to do away with them…particularly those programs usually described as “safety net programs.” Mostly, I am not one of those people. I see a real need for safety net programs…and I oppose efforts by conservatives to dismantle or damage them.
We have courts of law to decide what “governmental functions” are lawful…and which violate our laws.
If the function does not violate the laws (is lawful)…seems to me it also is legitimate.
The government’s role, in my view, is to provide that which is necessary to be a productive member of society.
A military is necessary to deter invading forces from preventing citizens being productive (or at least, forcing them to be productive for the invading force). Similarly, a police force is necessary to deter domestic criminals from doing the same.
A transportation system (road and highway, rail, bus lines, whatever) is necessary to ensure citizens can adequately get from their home to their place of work.
A health care system is necessary to ensure citizens remain productive despite illness.
A welfare system is necessary to ensure citizens who meet with misfortune outside their control can get back to being productive.
And so on. Obviously, it can be argued how necessary some of these are. But there’s also some things are clearly not necessary. I see a lot of anti-healthcare posters sarcastically remark about how if we’re going to provide healthcare for everyone, we should just give them Mustangs as well. Well, obviously, it is not necessary to own a sports car to be productive; you can get by fine with public transit or walking along sidewalks. But it is necessary to be healthy to be productive.
This is, in some way, similar to what RickJay termed market failures. The market relies on a certain equality between consumer and producer, and also presupposes that the consumer has a certain amount of wealth they can give to the producer in return for the service or good. Things that are necessary for a productive citizen must serve the citizenry first and foremost, and if you charge someone directly and at full market value to use the services that will help make them productive and earn money, they cannot become productive in the first place.
Not if you can’t afford that, though, surely? I don’t see the difference you do that means a healthy population being good in general for everyone isn’t a reasonable reason for the government to get involved, but could it not be argued that what the government might provide acceptably in terms of healthcare is not that care in and of itself, but rather, a “safety net”; after all, a person wealthy enough to be able to afford private treatment today might well not be so tomorrow. It seems as though in that sense it’s reasonable to compare with the police; most of the time, the only benefit provided by the police to an average citizen is the continuance of a safe society, as healthcare provides for a healthy society. And, certainly, an individual may pay for private bodyguards, security systems, or personal armaments. However, on those occasions where a person cannot - even if only temporarily removed from their own personal arrangements - the police are a safety net to protect them.
The government has a role in protecting legitimate rights (that’s another thread, but in my view, all legitimate rights are some form of the right to be left alone). Rights the government need concern itself with are passive rights–i.e., those rights for which people require no assistance in enjoying the benefit, other than making sure someone else doesn’t step on them. Rights should be determined by the legislature. To the extent that the law is silent, that passive right exists (e.g., I have the right to grow petunias in my garden, though the Constitution may not enumerate such a right; the government has a legitimate function in arresting my neighbor who digs up my garden because he hates petunias). The government can install and oversee “non-right” laws that are also necessary to keep society running in an orderly manner, provided the laws are purely practical and not overbearing. For example, we all need to drive on the right side of the road; you have to honor a contract you willingly entered into or be subject to the consequences.
Second, (and it’s really just a corollary of the first) the government has the duty to minimize its impact on individual personal liberties. Eminent domain type efforts ought to be rare and should proceed only after all due discussion, consideration, and process; our bias should be against such actions.
The government ought to conduct those activities that are essentially necessary and that a citizen cannot in any practical way exclude himself from the benefit: national defense, police protection, interstate infrastructure. All activity that expands beyond this necessarily places an undue stress on personal liberties. The larger the expansion, the greater our personal liberties diminish.
The government can provide a last-gasp safety net for those in catastrophic need when those people truly cannot care for themselves (which is something of an exception).
And finally, by definition, if the aggregate functions provided by the government cannot be supported, then some of those functions (if not all) are not legitimate as a purely practical matter. The government can’t do what it can’t sustain, even if the angels are on their side with regard to good intentions.
The government does not, and cannot, need to solve every problem. The fact that people are not happy is not a de facto failing of the government.
As a conservative/libertarian, I would say that legitimate functions of a government are to *protect *individual freedoms of their citizens; not to *restrict *individual freedoms. In other words, we should be *more *free for the existence of our government, not less. Free from danger, coercion, foreign invasion, etc.
Our current government in the USA, however, seems to have a different opinion.
Yes, indeed. Governments do this all the time, by locking up criminals, often rendering them unable to take up such duties should they be chosen for them, or by rendering a congregation’s buildings tax-exempt so long as clerics do not endorse political candidates from them. Can you think of no area connected with religion that you would say renders governmental influence either entirely valid or entirely invalid?
I would say that your first example doesn’t really apply here, as the government’s purpose in locking up the criminal is not (hopefully) to control the church’s hiring practices. If it is–that is, if the government wants to shut Rick Warren up by putting him in prison–that is an illegitimate function.
As to the tax-exempt status, I’m not convinced that churches merit it in the first place.
I’m not yet answering your concluding question because I have to think about it.
I’d say that we lock people up in part so that they won’t do it again, either in terms of the sentence acting as a deterrent to them personally or simply in terms of them not being able to commit a crime while imprisoned. If someone commits several illegal confidence tricks, or rapes someone, or kills someone, then we lock them up in part so that people can be protected - and that includes those who might wish to make them clerics for whatever reason just as it includes any form of employment. If Rick Warren embezzled money from popular causes, then it is reasonable to lock him up in part so that he cannot take advantage of those who might continue to believe in his innocence so easily.
To be honest, i’m not entirely convinced one way or the other on that one.