NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been wanting to set down some guidelines that I thought should apply to government policy for a while now. I must have had all the right conditions to focus my thought process in the other thread, and I came up with what seems to be three good justifying conditions of government policy:

1. The policy must be of universal utility. If any policy is inconsistent, then there are rights being taken away from one to give to another.

2. The policy must only have jurisdiction over those issues that the private citizens cannot possibly resolve. If private citizens can resolve the issue, they will resolve it to their liking with no need of government intervention.

3. The service must have eminent necessity. The private sector may not resolve issues if it is not of any necessity, so we should not confuse private willful inaction with private inability to resolve issues.

I posted this in the socialism thread, but I thought it was applicable to non-economic policy as well. I wanted to get the input of those who discuss social issues as well.

So tell me, what is wrong with my reasoning?

I think the problem lies in number two. The private people can reslove issues fine democraticly, but who does it really work out for? If you have two-or more-sides to an issue, it does not "work out" for everyone if one side wins. Thus is the purpose of organized government. As wonky as this is, the people can't decide what is best for them as a whole, because there will always be people who are better off one way than another. It is the responsability of the government to create a sort of equality among the people, so as not to deny any rights. It is the responsability of the individuals that the people elect to decide what's right for everyone, not just who voted for them.

(That's not the best post ever. I'm tired and a bit sick, so cut me some slack please)

I think the problem lies in number two. The private people can reslove issues fine democraticly, but who does it really work out for? If you have two-or more-sides to an issue, it does not "work out" for everyone if one side wins. Thus is the purpose of organized government. As wonky as this is, the people can't decide what is best for them as a whole, because there will always be people who are better off one way than another. It is the responsability of the government to create a sort of equality among the people, so as not to deny any rights. It is the responsability of the individuals that the people elect to decide what's right for everyone, not just who voted for them.

(That's not the best post ever. I'm tired and a bit sick, so cut me some slack please)

What I am saying is, if people can freely decide and act as individuals, then there is no reason for government to regulate their behavior. Any situation that arises where the government determines the preferred action for any person who could have determined it for themselves would cause an elimination of rights. For social issues, policies that illegalize abortion come to mind. They pass conditions 1 and 3, but not two.

I do know that #2 has the greatest implications, so where problems do arise, it will most likely be with it. People with disagree as to whether it is a true justification, and what policies actually fit the justification.

Underlying this is of course the whole infallibility of the individual business...

Sometimes a government knows things that individuals don't. Governments think long-term, individuals are myopic.

To come back to the one thing I do know a bit about - economics - an example are positional goods.

You buy a car. What do you want of that car? Transportation. You don't actually want a car, you want the mobility it gives to you.
Now, everyone goes and buys a car. What's the result? Everyone stands in a traffic jam and no one is mobile like they wanted to be.

You go and get a BA from University. Do you actually want a BA? No, of course not. You want the benefits a BA provided to someone else who's done it before you. As does everybody else - and as a result a BA isn't actually worth anything anymore.

You sit in a Cricket Stadium. It's full, but because it's a big game they allow a few people to go and sit on the grass just outside the field. Those people make the rational (and correct) choice and stand up so they can see better. You sit behind them - you have to stand up too. And so everyone in the stadium needs to stand up, and pretty much no one is better off (actually, your legs are gonna hurt after a while...)

In all these cases there is an imminent necessity to solve the problem. The private individual could fix the problem. And everyone (or everyone involved in the problem) would benefit from a solution.

Underlying this is of course the whole infallibility of the individual business...

Sometimes a government knows things that individuals don't. Governments think long-term, individuals are myopic.

To come back to the one thing I do know a bit about - economics - an example are positional goods.

You buy a car. What do you want of that car? Transportation. You don't actually want a car, you want the mobility it gives to you.
Now, everyone goes and buys a car. What's the result? Everyone stands in a traffic jam and no one is mobile like they wanted to be.

You go and get a BA from University. Do you actually want a BA? No, of course not. You want the benefits a BA provided to someone else who's done it before you. As does everybody else - and as a result a BA isn't actually worth anything anymore.

You sit in a Cricket Stadium. It's full, but because it's a big game they allow a few people to go and sit on the grass just outside the field. Those people make the rational (and correct) choice and stand up so they can see better. You sit behind them - you have to stand up too. And so everyone in the stadium needs to stand up, and pretty much no one is better off (actually, your legs are gonna hurt after a while...)

In all these cases there is an imminent necessity to solve the problem. The private individual could fix the problem. And everyone (or everyone involved in the problem) would benefit from a solution.

As far as human fallibility goes, I am much more comfortable knowing that people are making mistakes, than I would be knowing they aren't free to make them.

In all of these situations, it is almost impossible to solve these problems without violating the universal utility condition as well.

But really, why do positional goods conflict with my guidelines. Positional goods have a way of regulating themselves through the private market through utility to cost fluctuations.

What about speed limits then?

Sometimes a government knows things that individuals don't. Governments think long-term, individuals are myopic.

Gee, thanks for the vote of confidence.

If Governments think long term, what's the deal with Iraq? Somalia? Haiti? The entire Middle East? What about Social Security? Farm bills?

The Government is every bit as cabable of being grossly shortsighted as you or I. Governments try to think long term; the good ones actually get it right some of the time.

I think that the wording is in and of itself fine. My issue is with the types of things that such policies would cause...but I'll avoid discussing capitalism on this thread.
For people who wish to live in far-right capitalist societies, the policies work.