So in the last post I kind of outlined a list of what the government does (in Canada, and many western countries anyway), and even got as far as starting a kind of definition. Let's flesh out that definition a bit.
Based on what I have posited so far, we could say that a "Government is a group of people who set the rules of our society."
Ok, that's pretty obvious, but what are those rules? And what for? That's where we started. Well we set rules for physical security (no one make take things from others without their permission - including their life, freedom or sense of security). We have economic rules like those for contracts (formal agreements that two parties create to govern exchanges of materials or services) . We have rules that say what belongs to everyone in our society, and how much (if anything) people must pay to develop or use those resources. We have rules to protect our drinking water, to control how much pollution may be put into the air we all breathe and so on.
We have rules for making rules! And rules for picking rulers.
Well all that is fairly straightforward, at least at the high level we're working at. If it was really this easy we wouldn't need...lawyers!
How do we decide what needs a rule? And how do our legislators set the boundaries that the rules define? Here is where we, and by "we" I mean each of us, need to start understanding what, exactly, we expect our government to "do".
I'd like to go back to boundary conditions again. How much security?
Well I don't want to look over my shoulder and wonder if the guy next door will decide to just take my house away while I'm sleeping. (I know he wouldn't we get along well over the fence, but still, in principle it could be anyone). So I at least want a little security.
On the other hand, I don't know anyone who wants to live in bubble wrap, protected from every nuance and up and down of life. So to say that governments should provide "security" I don't mean that The Government should try to step in and solve every problem. Lock us each into our homes every night and kiss us goodnight, and set a watchman on every corner. Meh.
We all have different tolerances for risk though, and different tolerances in different areas of life. People who are successful in business often want less rules in trade, but lots of rules to protect their wealth and the property they have built up. Funny how that works.
Speaking of wealth, all these rules cost money to enact and enforce, which brings a whole new dimension to this thing we call Government. It has to be paid for.
Yeah you all saw that coming. We live in the real world, and every rule the government makes costs money at some point. Which means we have to pay fees, taxes, fines, whatever in order to keep the wheels running.
So far we have identified a couple of key axes that we can start to measure what we want from Government.
The amount of security it provides (more or less)
The amount of money it costs (more or less).
I like to look at these things in terms of axes, so that we can, for any given measure, decide where on the axis we want to be (lots of security or very little)
There are more. First, which securities?
I can think of:
Physical
External Security (defence)
Economic
Environmental
Moral
Political
What about paying for things:
User Pay? (Fees, Value Added Taxes, Tolls),
Everyone pays (income taxes, wealth taxes, property taxes)
Let's flesh these out a bit. I'm using the pattern of Western Government as an example for now. Later I plan to look at some of these items and we can challenge whether a government is the best we to provide particular services.
Physical Security is fairly straight forward, it is the protection of life and property inside the country. But that's not just a police force, it is a judiciary, a prison system, possibly rehabilitation and education programs (assuming you prefer criminals to become contributors to society after you have punished them)
External Security. Navy, Army, Air Force (in order of seniority). Actually not just the armed forces, to be secure we also need a diplomatic corps (fighting is messy and expensive. Arguably the greatest wartime leader of the 20th Century, Sir Winston Churchill said:
"Jaw, Jaw is better than War War".Churchill was also a big fan or innovation (for example, he helped in the development of the Tank), and espionage (See "Defence of the Realm, The authorized History of MI5"). In this day and age we should also include cyber security too.
Economic. Possibly the most complex. Economics is not all the well understood, possibly because a lot of it involves predicting the future, something that no one is very good at. Economic security can be both internal and external, with rules for accounting, tax law and enforcement (if the government runs out of money it can't do the job!), trade deals with other countries, rules of commerce (to keep trade running smoothly), a judiciary (to adjudicate and enforce and interpret) and central banks to provide and regulate currency (which is more efficient than a barter economy).
Environmental could be included under "Physical" security, but I think clean air and water deserve their own section. Resource Extraction and Sharing can also be here, but they could be under economic just as easily. Unless we choose to let everyone take what they want, but then that's one end of the axis, isn't it?
Moral. Possibly the most contentious of the things government regulates. What is acceptable behaviour in our society? This one gets conflated with physical security as well, since some immoral behaviours are harmful to people. It is also true that in a diverse society, morals can be very different from one person to the next - and such morals are often based in religion, which is always a very personal and often deeply held set of beliefs.
I left Political for last, because I suspect many people do not think of "Political Security" that the government should provide. I am however, the child of an immigrant, and in visiting "the old country" I have seen at first hand the political and economic results of a military coup, of rampant corruption and a lack of respect for the rule of law, and I have even had the good fortune to see that country recover somewhat from those challenges. Political security is about ensuring that the rules that are enacted are actually respected, followed (for the most part) and that those that break them face consequences. Political security is also needed in our transitions from one set of governers to another. The world is full of examples where elections are won, only to be ignored. One of the greatest strengths of our society is that, when defeated, the losing legislators pass the reigns to the next set of legislators peacefully and with respect. For a great example I quote former Alberta Premier David Hancock, who tweeted
"Congratulations @RachelNotely 1st govt swearing in I've not been participant since 1997 - still moving + emotional from this perspective"I believe we are spoiled in Canada on the subject of political security. It is something we should always keep an eye on, because without it, we lose the chance to easily influence our governers.
On that subject, where does the authority of our governers come from? Who told them they could make and enforce rules, and collect taxes? Next up, a short history of governments...
No comments:
Post a Comment