Government is Just a Hammer
Mar. 22nd, 2003 12:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynI think the thing that I disliked the most about the game NationStates was its implicit assumption that government was the controlling force to society. That is to say, everything that happens in a society: the economy, the divorce rate, the family structure, technological achievements, etc., was the direct result of government policies. There is an assumption that if the government doesn't do something, nothing will happen. If the government doesn't save the rainforest, then it will inevitably be cut down. If the government doesn't outlaw public indecency, everyone will walk the streets naked. If the government doesn't provide social security, then all elderly people will go homeless.
I think it's this fundamental assumption that leads people to think of Libertarians as hard-hearted conservatives indifferent to human suffering. You look at someone who says "we should do away with food stamps" and it's hard not to think "Don't you care?"
Of course I care. Of course I think people should help one another. Of course I believe in charity, in compassion, in decency.
What I don't believe is that the State is any good at charity or compassion. The State is good -- really good -- at just one thing: the use of force. By golly, if you need guns or jails or manpower to kick people around, the State is the place to go. It can bully, harass, and coerce like nobody's business.
And that's a good thing. There will always be powers in the world that will use force against you, and force will always be necessary to defend you from it. The State, ideally, is that good guy using its considerable force in defense of its people.
But force is not the solution to every problem -- at the very least, not the best solution to every problem. When the State tries to do other things, that don't really involve the use of force, it tends to botch them up. It has unintended consequences. It's so big and impersonal that it lends itself to corruption and abuse.
It's not that I'm a pessimist and think people are so pathetic they don't deserve help and should be left to die if they can't take care of themselves. It's that I'm a hopeless optimist, and I think that smaller organizations will step in to fill the void, and to do it better, if the State stops trying.
The State is a hammer. It's a big hammer. It's a really good hammer. But not every problem in the world is a nail.
I think it's this fundamental assumption that leads people to think of Libertarians as hard-hearted conservatives indifferent to human suffering. You look at someone who says "we should do away with food stamps" and it's hard not to think "Don't you care?"
Of course I care. Of course I think people should help one another. Of course I believe in charity, in compassion, in decency.
What I don't believe is that the State is any good at charity or compassion. The State is good -- really good -- at just one thing: the use of force. By golly, if you need guns or jails or manpower to kick people around, the State is the place to go. It can bully, harass, and coerce like nobody's business.
And that's a good thing. There will always be powers in the world that will use force against you, and force will always be necessary to defend you from it. The State, ideally, is that good guy using its considerable force in defense of its people.
But force is not the solution to every problem -- at the very least, not the best solution to every problem. When the State tries to do other things, that don't really involve the use of force, it tends to botch them up. It has unintended consequences. It's so big and impersonal that it lends itself to corruption and abuse.
It's not that I'm a pessimist and think people are so pathetic they don't deserve help and should be left to die if they can't take care of themselves. It's that I'm a hopeless optimist, and I think that smaller organizations will step in to fill the void, and to do it better, if the State stops trying.
The State is a hammer. It's a big hammer. It's a really good hammer. But not every problem in the world is a nail.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Oh, two miscellaneous notes
Date: 2003-03-24 01:59 am (UTC)PEERS. Prostitute's Education and Empowerment Rehabilitative Society. (or something like that). It's been lauded by reporters as being efficient, effective, and well run. Set up by a contemporary feminist faction that lobbied the government for funding, it's done a lot of good in Victoria for helping people who are in the sex trade live better, and for those who want to leave it, to get a "normal" life again. They actually get as much work as they can handle because since they're non-sectarian, prostitutes (being paranoid after a while on the street, I am told by the couple I've met) trust them more than they'd trust anything run with a religious slant.
The government cut it's funding, which was about 2/3 of the organization's total. Charity could go partway, but a lot of people would go without help if the government wasn't involved. They didn't point to anything and say "you did things badly, we have to give your money to people who can use it better." In fact, they've refused to comment on the issue.
Secondly, I do very much agree that the worst side of government is this attitude that people can do nothing for themselves. The way care for the disabled worked, either you did it on your own dime, or your put your dependent into an institution; no inbetween. Institutions have lousy quality of life, and we only have them for the least functional cases. However, for some reason, parents are often very attached even to someone who can't communicate or function. I guess this is that empathy problem I have (wry smile).
Recently, in Kamploops or one of the other lower interior communities, a couple killed their son and themself because their health was failing, they were broke, and they would not hand their child over to government care. They had applied repeatedly over the last twenty some years for financial aid, but were told everytime "there's only two ways to do this". Now, I understand the government's concern, they want to prevent parents from getting money for a child they may be abusing, and auditing to prevent this would probably not be cost effective.
But I think maybe they should have thought harder, or maybe invited the disabled community advocates to try and give a reasonable solution. (administrative problem solving time in government is at a premium, given that people who can see "the big picture" are not very common, in general).
This is an example of government being too pushy, trying to coerce you into doing things their way. Because they had this attitude they were the best caregivers, an attitude not really founded in fact, from what I've heard.
So, just to remind you, it's not that I don't agree partway about your basic statement. It's a worrisome problem, trying to keep people from being something government is done _to_ rather than something people are a part _of_.
Re: Oh, two miscellaneous notes
Date: 2003-03-24 07:23 am (UTC)Part of the appeal of the libertarian philosophy is, of course, the simplification of issues. It's much easier to say "Let's just give the people a tax break and let them give to charities if they want" then to work out how a federal government can effectively allocate huge resources. Part of it is a distrust of large organizations, be they gov't, corporate, or even private charities. The more removed the top is from the bottom, the more corruption gets in.
But my intent in the original essay wasn't really to convince anyone that I was *right*; I was trying to show that being libertarian doesn't mean being *indifferent*. I may certainly be wrong, or misguided, but I'm not malevolent. :)