Obama and the Proper Role of Government
Obama in a recent speech said if he loses in 2012, “we’re going to have a government that tells the American people, ‘you are on your own’ .”
In this statement Obama has, probably unknowingly, highlighted that which chiefly defines the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe that the purpose of government is to manage its citizens to create equitable outcomes for everyone, while conservatives believe that the government should establish fair laws and then respect our individual liberty by leaving us alone to either prosper or fail without managing individual outcomes.
To most conservatives being “on your own” is good, because it means that you, as an individual, decide how to live your life and spend your money without guidance or interference from the government. By contrast, Obama and most liberals abhor that sort of “selfish individualism”. They believe that a government controlled by enlightened progressives knows what is best for all the people, and that it should manage individual decisions in a way that guarantees an equitable distribution of goods and a minimum standard of living for everyone.
Inherent in this attitude is the belief that as enlightened, caring progressives they have a duty to guide the common masses and prevent the greedy and rich from taking advantage of the poor. Disagreement with this progressive viewpoint is evidence to them of the sort of selfishness and greed that needs to be controlled by appropriate legislation. Allowing individuals to make free, unmanaged decisions would effectively prevent the government from redistributing wealth, determining individual outcomes, and using taxpayer money to build loyal, dependent supporters.
This surrender of individual freedom is “sold” to the voters by promises that the government will use its power to protect ordinary citizens from the abuses of greedy corporations and rich Wall Street Tycoons. However, every law and regulation necessarily reduces individual freedom, since the government is deciding by law something that was previously a private choice.
In addition, commercial laws and regulations that are supposed to protect the public welfare normally also have the unannounced purpose of favoring the largest corporations with the most political clout to the detriment of their smaller competitors and the public (the early 20th century meat packing laws were drafted and promoted by large meat industry corporations to squeeze out competition from small companies that could not afford to comply with the rules; also the largest health care providers support government regulation because the small companies are financially unable to compete and the largest companies now have very little competition and government guaranteed profits).
Laws that are alleged to protect the consumer by mandating extensive government control of private business always cause price increases, reduce competition, and provide opportunities for the ruling party to provide favors to corporate political supporters. The public good and freedom is best served when business is burdened with the least regulation necessary to protect fair play, and those assets that we all hold in common.
The use of the government to accomplish anything is also necessarily the “use of force”, since all governmental action is accomplished by law and by the use of the police powers. Therefore, conservatives believe that the government should not do anything that cannot properly be done by the use of force. Indeed, conservatives believe that the proper role of government is to protect us from foreign enemies through the military, protect us from infringing each other’s rights through access to the law and the courts, and then to leave us alone to live our own lives and make our own choices. In short, after providing basic security and the protection of the legal system conservatives want the government to say, “You are on your own.”
The liberal belief that the government and its bureaucrats should have the discretion to regulate society for the common good is also steadily resulting in the replacement of the “rule of law” with the arbitrary power of men. The “rule of law” means that we can rely on fair and neutral laws, decided on beforehand, and not intended to harm or benefit any particular person or group. Tyranny arises when the laws are no longer neutral “rules of the game”, but when they allow the government to arbitrarily benefit some people at the expense of others. Whether a citizen succeeds or fails should not be the concern of government, and the government has no right to guarantee outcomes by taking from some citizens and giving their property to others. Since the government has nothing that it does not first take from taxpayers, when the government conveys a direct benefit on one individual or group, it must first take property by force from other citizens. If it is wrong for an individual to take his neighbor’s property by force, then it is also wrong to use the government to do the same thing.
Conservatives believe that the needy should be helped by the voluntary action of those willing to give. Laws that require mandatory transfers of wealth from some citizens to directly benefit other citizens are wrong in themselves, create attitudes of entitlement rather than gratitude in those who receive, and resentment rather than benevolence in those forced to give, thereby benefiting no one. Taxes were intended by the founders to be used solely for projects that were necessary for the common defense and welfare of all of the citizens, such as the military and the court system, and not to directly benefit particular people or groups at the expense of others. In response, liberals argue that the hard-hearted conservatives want the poor to live in need and starve. However, opposition to a thing being done by the government does not mean opposition to it being done at all. For example, if I oppose the government running farms it does not mean that I am opposed to farming by anyone. Let those who are willing, give as they see fit to the good causes that they support, rather than passing laws to take property by force to be redistributed as the politicians see fit–usually to their supporters.
Having the government decide a thing rather than leaving it to individual choice is attractive if a person wants to use the government to crack down on his opponents , force others to support some cause he favors, benefit himself at the expense of others, or if he wants the power to tell other people what to do. People generally believe that the government should pass laws to curb the abuses of others, but seldom consider that they might be the target of the law. However, before transferring power to the government we should consider that power is almost never voluntarily returned and will probably be used in ways we don’t anticipate.
Many “reformers” like Robespierre and Trotsky used the government to destroy their enemies but eventually that power was also used to destroy them. Once surrendered, individual liberty is very hard to get back, and exchanging freedom for financial security has historically almost always ended in oppression. It is, therefore, well to remember that only our own government can truly oppress and abuse us. No corporation can use the law and the police to take our property and freedom if we disobey its directives. If we don’t like Wal-Mart, Bank of America, or any other corporation we can simply stop doing business with it, and there is nothing it can do. However, we can’t refuse to follow our government’s directives without forfeiting our property and freedom.
In the past when people have surrendered their individual liberty to the government in exchange for promises of prosperity and protection, they have received instead oppression and tyranny. Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin and Mao all promised to help the people by curbing the abuses of corporations, Jews, capitalists, land owners, banks, department stores, etc. , and to provide protection and plenty in exchange for the uncertainty of individual freedom. By contrast, being “on your own” means that you, as a free citizen, can make your own choices and decide your own destiny. If we are faced with the choice of having the government manage our fate or being “on our own” , I choose to be “on my own”.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=7705
