Richard's view of Government

Oooohh... so simple!

Maybe you think it is simplistic too - but read on. I've been thinking about this for quite a few years - probably since I started my business career in the mid '70s. Prior to that I was generally immune to thinking about anything beyond my personal view, somewhat in keeping with many who didn't like history or civics in school.

Some Definitions

Government

Pick your poison - from benevolent dictator to elected representative. Multi-level (local, regional, national) or direct representation. 
 

Dictator

A dictatorship is not a government since it ignores the precept of doing things in the best interests of the individuals governed. The dictator only does things that are in the dictator's interests. Note that in some instances Kings and Queens were in fact dictators, however most learned that they should in fact be "benevolent dictators" and inject altruism into their governing. The truly benevolent dictator though can be determined because they really don't want the job.
 

Individual

The individual must also include the corporation and other legal forms where groups act as one for specific purposes.
 

 

Public Works

A tomb for the emperor is not a beneficial public work. Public works should be done to lower the friction involved in the daily lives of the population. Friction can be anything from bumps in the path they must traverse from dwelling to place of work (roads, railways, transportation in general), to creating places for foreigners to land, meet and do business (airports, shipping ports, etc.)

Public works are of necessity larger than any person can accomplish, so are either the purview of corporations or government. If there is the possibility of competition, then government should encourage it and otherwise keep out of the way.

The concept of "... not in the best interests of the individual to do" means that government should only get involved in public works if the economics (amount of capital, cost/benefit ratio, etc.) doesn't favour corporations getting involved in competitive ways. If there is only room for one entity to do something, then government should either be the one or ensure that the one that does "get the franchise" does not hold the public up for ransom. This for example is why in some countries the government got into the telephone business (along with the postal system to create the P&T) and in others (notably here in North America) the business was a regulated monopoly for many years.

Policing

In the broad spectrum of a population there are some who will turn to gain at the expense of others. They will steal instead of producing. This friction in the system lowers the overall population's productivity but is next to impossible to deal with by the individual if the society is larger than a few people. A specific policing system is the solution to this problem.

Being able to carry on with daily activities without fear for personal safety allows the individual to be more productive and boosts the overall productivity of the population to the benefit of all. If the cost of providing that secure feeling is less than the gain in productivity, then it is in the population's best interests for the security to be provided. This is the basis for having police (and courts and the rest of the justice system)

At some point the cost of providing "infinite" security approaches the amount that the overall population gains by having security compared to not having it. The cost of policing must be balanced against the cost of not having it. One of the costs of not having security is the cost of mitigating crime. Insurance mitigates crime to some extent by spreading the loss across all those who pay insurance.

Today, my insurance costs are going up faster than my taxes (which pay for policing amongst other things) which leads me to think that we are not spending enough on policing.

Insurance

We here in Western Canada are currently (August 2003) going through the worst forest fire season on record. Hundreds of homes have been burned in "interface fires" where forest meets the city. Government (both provincial and federal) has stated that it will provide relief to those affected which in essence is the same as insurance. We all pay into our governments through taxes and when the time comes, government provides the assistance to those affected by circumstances outside the individuals' control.

Many of the homes had specific fire insurance. At the same time, some of the homes were not insured. Some due to specific decision by their owners and some because private insurance would not provide coverage at a reasonable rate due to lack of local fire fighting facilities in general.

Securing the Country's borders

I can't watch the sea-ports in Nova Scotia to keep thugs and potential conquerors out. The people in New Brunswick can't watch the BC Airport. Someone has to extend security of our chosen land from shore to shore and border to border. The central government's role is to protect the population from outsiders when appropriate. Along the way, a national armed forces can provide a pool of people trained in disaster relief and available as an adjunct to the internal security and civil forces in case of exceptional circumstances - fire (Kelowna/Kamloops this year), flood (Quebec last year), earth quake (any time now). Now that we have world commerce and our diplomats are on foreign soil where they are exposed to other countries' less than civilized behavior, the troops must be called upon to protect there too.

Ensuring the population's economic security

This is a difficult one for me. On the one hand I'm in favour of minimal interference by government in commerce and economics because I believe that anything they do acts as a brake on some part of the economy. On the other hand, sometimes I think the economy needs a brake now and then.

Encouraging the population's longevity

This aspect includes many different areas - from protection against outside forces to inspection of food products to an involvement in the health industry at some level.