Demablogue: Five study questions about government

One of my central projects in this blog is the clarification of the role of government, generally. What is it we expect government to do for us? Is government behaving in a manner consistent with the principles of its founding? What are those principles, in essence?—and is the way that government is constituted the most effective one for realizing those principles? In the spirit of seeking for first principles, I present the following questions for your consideration.

Is the role of government to reduce violence and conflict within society, or to exacerbate violence and conflict within society?

We understand that violence is currently a part of human social interaction (without going to far as to say that “violence and war is an inherent part of human nature”—the subject of another essay). In order to protect themselves from violence, individuals form larger groups, which in turn end up bringing the violence to a new level: groups, cliques, tribes, mobs, mafias, etc. It would seem that human society has formed government in order to keep that inter-group violence in check. Now of course, in much of history and in much of the world, that violence ends up transferred to yet another level: that of wars between nations. My question here has to do with internal conflict and violence within society, within one society supposedly governed by one government.
Leaving aside the question of why government might have been founded in the first place, we can ask simply: knowing that different groups within a society would attack each other if allowed, should the government of the whole society encourage that conflict, or should it strive to reduce that wherever and whenever possible? Should it strive to compromise among the interests of different parties, or should it egg-on the different factions within society toward greater and greater conflict? Should it seek to polarize society, or should it seek to unite society?

2. Does government exist for the benefit of the people governed, or are the people gathered together for the benefit of the government?

In ancient empires and kingdoms, from the European feudal system, to the Aztec empire, to the Ancient Roman empire, to thousands of small kingdoms across geography and history, government (the kings and nobles) took benefit from the governed (subjects, serfs, slaves, taxpayers). Government enriched itself at the expense of the people, and acted, in a way, just like a large mafia: offering “protection” (from other greedy kings, presumably) in exchange for a large share of agricultural production. Any disturbance of this system is severely punished, any failure to defer completely to the authority of the monarch resulted in death. In the European Enlightenment of the 18^th century the question was first examined thoroughly by political philosophers: is it possible to have a government that exists for the benefit of the people? A government that is subject to the people, rather than the other way around? In principle, the US constitution was an attempt to create such a government.

So my question here really is:

A. Do we still want a government subject to, and for the benefit of, the people?

B. If so, is our government, as currently constituted, operating thus?—or is it, in fact, acting contrary to that principle and seeking benefit for itself (in particular, private benefit for public leaders and their families, friends, and business connections) above that of the people?

Should government seek to promote the interests of particular groups within society, or should it seek the benefit of all equally?

By particular groups, I mean the obvious: races or ethnic groups, religious groups, economic classes, political groups, sexes, etc.—any of the ways that human beings try to distinguish themselves from each other. This question is not only the question of whether government should endorse one particular religion, or grant political power to certain races or classes more than others: it is also a question of whether government’s job is to enforce the will of the majority above all minorities, dissenters, etc.—or whether government should allow all voices to be heard and included in the process of governing. If the majority of people are Christian, should the country rule according to Christian principles? If the majority of people are women (51%), should women be ruling men? If the majority of people are white, should the interests of other races be denied?—and when, in 50 years, the majority of Americans are Hispanic, should only their interests dominate?
                  Viewed from another angle, this question could be posed thus:
            Should government seek to govern by principles that are acceptable to all, or should it govern by principles acceptable to the majority, but which harm minorities within society?
            I should add, this is not a question about specific legislation, per se—about which it would be impossible to reach a consensus—but a question about the backbone of government, the principles by which it governs. And by “principles acceptable to all” I don’t mean that everyone will automatically agree to them (especially because many people in society might disagree with any principle that doesn’t privilege their particular group)—but that, at least in the abstract, those governing principles can be reasonably demonstrated to be neutral regarding the differences among those governed, and not prejudiced toward any group.

Is it the government’s job to rule people, to dictate the specific details of people’s private lives? Or is its job to protect people—from each other, from the potentially harmful actions of others?

If a government’s job is to reduce violence, obviously it must, at the least, protect people from each other (of course, if that is not part of its job, then it needn’t protect anybody). But perhaps we also need government to lead us, guide us, tell us how to act. Or do we?
When it comes to the issue of individual freedom within a community, society, or nation, we must recognize that there are some things we might like to do which might infringe on the liberty, rights, or lives of others. Such as murder, theft, and rape—to take three things that obviously infringe on others, and which any society seeks (or should seek) to limit. What about things like drunk driving? Or child pornography? Again, it can be reasonably demonstrated that these things cause direct harm to others, and we should limit them.
But should government go further—in seeking to create order in society, or uniformity, should it regulate that whole slew of activities, which individuals might engage in, that cannot be shown to cause direct harm to others? Such as drinking alcohol in one’s own home, or having consensual sex with another adult, or engaging in certain religious or spiritual practices, or burning a national flag?
The back and forth in our society about such issues over the course of centuries suggests that there is a lot of gray area on this issue. If we look at different cultures over the course of history, we will notice two things. One, every culture has had some kind of moral code to regulate the behavior of individuals within society. And two, many of those moral codes differ from each other in some significant respects, and some are downright incompatible with others (think of the commandment to “take no other gods before me”).
I believe, to the contrary, that There is no gray area on this issue!! What do I mean by this? Either the government chooses some moral code to run the country—and in doing so, enforces the moral prejudices of one particular group within society against others (see question 3). Or the government operates on the principle that actions that can be shown to harm others must be limited. There is no middle ground. Every issue falls into one of these two categories: either it can be demonstrably shown that engaging in a certain activity causes harm to other members of society, or, on the contrary, such an action cannot be shown to cause direct harm, but it goes against some specific moral code invented by some particular human society.
So this question, in my mind, boils down to this: should the government operate on the principle of “no harm” (the one universal principle on which all moral codes agree, and, one supposes, the job of government in protecting its citizens), or should it endorse and enforce some particular moral code?
When I say that there is no gray area, I don’t mean that in the lives of individuals there is no moral gray area. To me, every single day is fraught with moral dilemma after dilemma. The question, then, is: should the government help me make those decisions? Or should it allow me to seek my own solutions? Is government a moral guide—or should it be morally neutral? All of these are simply different ways of phrasing the same question about government interference in our lives.
The one issue about which I will admit that there seems to be some gray area, is that of abortion. But in fact, the gray area is not about whether the government should protect individuals from harm, or enforce some particular moral code. The gray area is really about “What is the definition of a person?” (all persons being subject to government protection). But in fact, people have disagreed about this, over the course of millennia (almost all societies, at all times in history, have practiced some form of infanticide—whether that be the abandoning of babies by mothers too poor to care for them, or killing girl babies, or killing twins out of some kind of superstition). There is a real moral dilemma here, which biologists admit is also a biological dilemma—a dilemma about spending resources on a being incapable of fending for itself. All species will abandon babies, when not doing so would lead to the death or harm of the mother or of her other children, in whom the mother has already invested a great deal of time and resources.
So, in my mind, this question is in fact a very personal moral dilemma faced by every mother. And it is also an issue about which American society (and other modern societies) demonstrably has no agreement or consensus. Which means, in the end, that there is no gray area on the question I posed: Either the government chooses to enforce some moral definition, or it allows individuals to make that moral choice. Either the government allows individual moral freedom, or it chooses some particular code supported by some people, but not all.

What is the government’s role on the international stage?

Should the government seek to act as a negotiator on behalf of its people, or should it act as a belligerent entity, waging war in the name of its people? Should the government compromise with other national entities, or should it unilaterally act as it wishes? And should the government seek to influence the affairs or forms of government of other nations?
Obviously this question depends in part on other ones: does the government have the military/economic power to do what it wants internationally? Is it strong enough to win a war against other countries? Is it in grave or imminent danger? One could argue that differing global circumstances should dictate different answers to my question five.
But this is dodging the question. When we elect a representative on our behalf, when we hire a lawyer to argue our case, or to negotiate a contract, we have the expectation that, no matter the external circumstances, this person will act in a certain way, will behave according to a set of agreed principles, etc. We would be furious if our contract lawyer started a brawl with the lawyer for the other party. We would be equally enraged and mystified if our congressional representative pulled out a gun in a session of congress and shot a member of the opposing party.
Now, on the international stage, we have no “world government” above all national governments—yet nonetheless, treaties, trade agreements, border issues, and all other manner of contracts and disputes are played out every day. Admitting that a government acts in the interest of its own people and not necessarily in the interest of others around the world (whether it should or not is another issue), is it in the interest of its own people that a government be an international bully or a negotiator? A lawyer hired by you acts in your interest, but he also obeys certain higher principles of conduct and negotiation and argument and ethics. Can and should we expect that the same principles of negotiation and ethics (agreement to be bound by contracts), which we seek to uphold within society, should be used by our government in external matters?
Acknowledging that other governments are corrupt and act belligerently and violate treaties all the time, should we therefore act the same, with the argument that if we don’t, they will destroy us? Or should we act ethically even when others do not, as a way of (hopefully) influencing other nations to act the same?
And a deeper question: is it possible to hold certain principles internally while violating others externally? What I mean is, if we believe that all people within a society deserve equal treatment under the law, and an equal voice in government affairs, is it possible to maintain that stance all the while denying a voice in our international affairs to those in the rest of the world? Of course, if our internal principle is that people of a certain class within society deserve more rights than others, it would be entirely consistent if on the international stage we acted the same: protecting our rights above those of others. That, in fact, is a pretty good way to describe American society over the last few hundred years (despite claims to the contrary—and the external hypocrisy is, by the way, consistent with the internal one)—as well as most countries the world over. The question is, is that what we want?—or could that be reasonably argued to be just?
This question is of course tied to my first question as well: is the government’s role to reduce or exacerbate violence? And is it in the people’s interest for the government to provoke or exacerbate international violence and war? Certainly it is in the interest of some elites within a country—especially corporations that profit from war and military contracts—to have international violence. But does it benefit the people as well—or does it, on the contrary, make them less safe? In terms of reducing violence in the world, would the government be better as a negotiator or as a combatant? And is it possible to foment violence elsewhere in the world without it spilling over—and washing back to our own shores?
What about certain issues that affect the entire world: such as environmental issues (global warming, pollution, etc.), population issues, and resource issues (energy, water, food, etc.)? Should the goal of our government be to find solutions in conjunction with other governments—and to compromise and agree to be bound by those compromises—or should our government act only in our (or their) “interest,” and attempt unilaterally to implement (or not implement) solutions? Is it, in fact, actually in our interest if the government compromises, or are we safe enough, resource-rich enough, environmentally-clean enough that we can afford to ignore the rest of the world, and we’re better off not compromising?

Well, since I’ve already prejudiced you enough with my questions, I don’t want to prejudice you any more with answers—at least not yet. I do believe that we have to consider these questions, though, rather than just assuming that our government is operating according to the principles it claims to, or the principles we would wish it to. Most of my future essays will be considerations of these questions in more detail.

Comments

This is really insightful, thank you for presenting these questions. I teach a US Citizenship class to prospective Americans and I think of what our county-governement-approved textbook states compared to this. It isn't awful, it just doesn't encourage free thinking, which is so crucial to being an American citizen. Our responsibility even. I'm bookmarking this post! Thanks a bunch!

Peace, Salihah

Posted by: Salihah | December 06, 2006 at 11:24 AM