I don't know that there truly is an 'ideal system'. There are systems that prioritize certain things over others, and they'll be better suited to some things and less suited to others.
There are definitely certain touchstones to American life - the American Dream, the Protestant work ethic - but there's also a strong support for local community. For helping those small mom and pop stores, for taking care of our own. (And there's a sense of sadness for how big box stores have pushed out those locally owned businesses, even as everyone still goes to shop there.)
There are people who point out the problems with these, ofc, but I wanted to focus on something else.
Namely - that we've grown so large and populous that it's hard to feel like our federal (and even state) government is truly ours any more. At the local level, sure... it's still "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"... but most of our national figures are too distant for us to truly know, evaluating their performance is time-consuming and difficult, and it's hard to feel like they really represent us.
Which is a problem, because that's part of how government stops being 'what we've decided we want to have happen' and starts becoming 'what that group over there is imposing on us'.
Some of the support for 'small government' is, I think, a reaction to that.
But we do still need government, on some level. Or rather, we could get rid of government... and then decide that we really do need great roads, and interested parties might get together to build a road... and decide on some sort of structure for making decisions on where to build the roads, and how to fund them. And maybe insist on a membership fee, or have some sort of administration to decide on tolls and hire some people to enforce those tolls...
And you've pretty much just reinvented government. You've given it a different name and, perhaps more importantly, you've done it in a way that makes you feel like you have control. Since you voluntarily joined your 'Organization for Highways and Byways', and voluntarily pay the membership fee. Maybe you grouch about some idiot that you think shouldn't be in charge of the organization, or dislike the decision to build a highway in a specific place, but it was still something you've voluntarily agreed to participate in, and you willingly pay your membership dues.
This is, I think, the first and most important point. Government is meant to serve us, and it should help us do what we want it to do. We, as a society, have to decide on what that is. What laws we want it to enforce, what benefits we want it to provide (or not), what budget we want it to have.
It's not the only way of making things happen, of course. Some things can be handled quite well by the private sector, and non-profits can take care of people without any sort of rule or legislation.
We've got a lot of tools in our kit bag here, so I kind of want to discuss the pros and cons of them.
For example:
Non-profits can do great work, however... their aid can be inconsistent (one organization refuses to help homosexuals, for example. Another only serves another segment of society), and people can and do fall through the cracks.
Many of them are also wasteful, spending other people's money on things that don't actually support their stated mission, which means they can donating to them can be more of a vanity act that actually funds con-artists and grifters.
Plus, some of them aren't really effective at what they're trying to do. There's an entire book talking about how aid to Africa often made things worse.
But perhaps the most important issue is that non-profits rarely have the level of resources they need. If we, as a society, want to have non-profits handle all the things we don't want government to do... if we want them to help people get the training they need to find a good job, or help them out during a period of unemployment, or fund the arts, or whatever... then people need to fund them in large enough levels to make a difference. If you don't want your tax dollars going to a government food stamp program, then you either are okay with people starving or you'd better step up to the plate.
Apparently that's part of why many religious organizations wanted the government to help during the Great Depression. The need was so great that they had no chance of keeping up with it.
That doesn't mean that government is always the right answer, btw. When you have the power to give, you also have the power to take away, and you have to think carefully about how that could be abused. Consider, if you will, the complaints that the federal government is playing games with the ventilators and PPE everyone needs during this pandemic. That governors who flatter the President enough (and are generally of the same party) tend to get more of their requests filled, and the ones who don't are left short-handed.
Do you really want the government to be able to deny you ventilators, or PPE, or food stamps, or whatever... because someone in charge has decided that certain people don't deserve it? Maybe they think homosexuals don't, or Christians don't. Or people who use drugs. Or people who speak out against the Republican party. Or people who don't kowtow enough...
In some ways, having the government provide grants and aid to non-profits is a fairly clever way of diffusing that power. It helps given non-profits the resources they were lacking, while preventing the government from having as much direct control over who gets the aid and who doesn't. Of course, there's still problems with coordination, keeping people from slipping through the cracks, and it still gives some of the non-profits the exact same potential for abuse that the government had. It's just that if there are multiple non-profits serving a community, the chances are better that someone denied aid at one can find help at another.
You can do the same sort of analysis for the private sector. Corporate philanthropy is great and all, and I do wish they weren't so short-sightedly focused on stock prices and other things, but when companies start getting into housing, or transportation, there's great potential for abuse. Like the company towns of old - do you really want to give businesses that level of power over you?
Most of this post may sound rather pessimistic, at first. I'm not trying to say that they're all bad options, so much as pointing out things to consider when proposing alternatives.
I think there are alternatives, plenty of them. We just have to be aware of some of the complexities involved, and things to look out for when designing them.
There are definitely certain touchstones to American life - the American Dream, the Protestant work ethic - but there's also a strong support for local community. For helping those small mom and pop stores, for taking care of our own. (And there's a sense of sadness for how big box stores have pushed out those locally owned businesses, even as everyone still goes to shop there.)
There are people who point out the problems with these, ofc, but I wanted to focus on something else.
Namely - that we've grown so large and populous that it's hard to feel like our federal (and even state) government is truly ours any more. At the local level, sure... it's still "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"... but most of our national figures are too distant for us to truly know, evaluating their performance is time-consuming and difficult, and it's hard to feel like they really represent us.
Which is a problem, because that's part of how government stops being 'what we've decided we want to have happen' and starts becoming 'what that group over there is imposing on us'.
Some of the support for 'small government' is, I think, a reaction to that.
But we do still need government, on some level. Or rather, we could get rid of government... and then decide that we really do need great roads, and interested parties might get together to build a road... and decide on some sort of structure for making decisions on where to build the roads, and how to fund them. And maybe insist on a membership fee, or have some sort of administration to decide on tolls and hire some people to enforce those tolls...
And you've pretty much just reinvented government. You've given it a different name and, perhaps more importantly, you've done it in a way that makes you feel like you have control. Since you voluntarily joined your 'Organization for Highways and Byways', and voluntarily pay the membership fee. Maybe you grouch about some idiot that you think shouldn't be in charge of the organization, or dislike the decision to build a highway in a specific place, but it was still something you've voluntarily agreed to participate in, and you willingly pay your membership dues.
This is, I think, the first and most important point. Government is meant to serve us, and it should help us do what we want it to do. We, as a society, have to decide on what that is. What laws we want it to enforce, what benefits we want it to provide (or not), what budget we want it to have.
It's not the only way of making things happen, of course. Some things can be handled quite well by the private sector, and non-profits can take care of people without any sort of rule or legislation.
We've got a lot of tools in our kit bag here, so I kind of want to discuss the pros and cons of them.
For example:
Non-profits can do great work, however... their aid can be inconsistent (one organization refuses to help homosexuals, for example. Another only serves another segment of society), and people can and do fall through the cracks.
Many of them are also wasteful, spending other people's money on things that don't actually support their stated mission, which means they can donating to them can be more of a vanity act that actually funds con-artists and grifters.
Plus, some of them aren't really effective at what they're trying to do. There's an entire book talking about how aid to Africa often made things worse.
But perhaps the most important issue is that non-profits rarely have the level of resources they need. If we, as a society, want to have non-profits handle all the things we don't want government to do... if we want them to help people get the training they need to find a good job, or help them out during a period of unemployment, or fund the arts, or whatever... then people need to fund them in large enough levels to make a difference. If you don't want your tax dollars going to a government food stamp program, then you either are okay with people starving or you'd better step up to the plate.
Apparently that's part of why many religious organizations wanted the government to help during the Great Depression. The need was so great that they had no chance of keeping up with it.
That doesn't mean that government is always the right answer, btw. When you have the power to give, you also have the power to take away, and you have to think carefully about how that could be abused. Consider, if you will, the complaints that the federal government is playing games with the ventilators and PPE everyone needs during this pandemic. That governors who flatter the President enough (and are generally of the same party) tend to get more of their requests filled, and the ones who don't are left short-handed.
Do you really want the government to be able to deny you ventilators, or PPE, or food stamps, or whatever... because someone in charge has decided that certain people don't deserve it? Maybe they think homosexuals don't, or Christians don't. Or people who use drugs. Or people who speak out against the Republican party. Or people who don't kowtow enough...
In some ways, having the government provide grants and aid to non-profits is a fairly clever way of diffusing that power. It helps given non-profits the resources they were lacking, while preventing the government from having as much direct control over who gets the aid and who doesn't. Of course, there's still problems with coordination, keeping people from slipping through the cracks, and it still gives some of the non-profits the exact same potential for abuse that the government had. It's just that if there are multiple non-profits serving a community, the chances are better that someone denied aid at one can find help at another.
You can do the same sort of analysis for the private sector. Corporate philanthropy is great and all, and I do wish they weren't so short-sightedly focused on stock prices and other things, but when companies start getting into housing, or transportation, there's great potential for abuse. Like the company towns of old - do you really want to give businesses that level of power over you?
Most of this post may sound rather pessimistic, at first. I'm not trying to say that they're all bad options, so much as pointing out things to consider when proposing alternatives.
I think there are alternatives, plenty of them. We just have to be aware of some of the complexities involved, and things to look out for when designing them.
No comments:
Post a Comment