The Guiding Principle of Government

This post is largely the product of chats with Sui Sin Far, as well as a highly engaging and meaningful conversation Big D, Duane and I had recently around the kitchen table. The exchange of ideas was inspired by Russell's post (see "The only other thing as dependable as death…"), and initiated by the question, "What is the moral basis of taxation?" Our discussion touched on many things, but eventually centered on the the role of government. While I am far from feeling that my ideas are fully formed - and they are far from set it stone - I feel that they consolidated somewhat in my mind during and since our exchange and are worth sharing in the Salon. I earnestly hope that they will merit a sincere review, and that others will feel emboldened to share their own ideas. The ultimate goal, of course, is to initiate dialogue - in the belief that through the exchange of ideas the truth will become more evident.

What is the role of government? What are its obligations, its duties? How can it most efficiently be executed? The true answer to the these questions must be found on a case-by-case basis, and any attempt to apply unyielding, theoretical solutions to every problem is bound to be ineffective at best, and fail at worst. It is valuable, however, to develop a general framework - a lens, if you will, through which each problem can be analyzed and brought into focus. What follows is an attempt to elaborate such a framework, which is perhaps best accomplished by telling a story.

A farmer went into his fields to work one morning, eager to prepare for spring planting. So great was his zeal, however, that he broke his plow in short order, and was thus unable to continue his work. Fortunately, there was another farm very near to his, whose owner had been even more eager than he and had already finished plowing his field. Surely, the farmer said to himself as he walked to his neighbor's front door, surely my neighbor and friend will lend me his plow, seeing my need.
To his surprise, the neighbor refused, saying, "Don't you know? There's the regional storehouse; they will be able to help you. We all contribute a portion of our harvest each year to purchase equipment for instances just like this. You will be able to use the plow they have there to prepare your fields. Don't bother me for mine - helping you isn't my responsibility; I fulfilled my responsibility when I gave a portion of my harvest to purchase the equipment at the storehouse."
The farmer could only agree with his neighbor, and asked where the storehouse was located, and found that he now had to travel many miles to the provincial capitol.
Upon arriving, the farmer went to the storehouse and asked the foreman permission to borrow a plow. Go to the bureau of equipment management, came the reply. After addressing a clerk at the front desk of the bureau, the farmer was referred to yet another clerk seated at a desk in a different office. The farmer was there informed that the only clerk authorized to deal with plows was not in the city at the moment, and would not return soon. Having traveled long to reach the storehouse, the farmer was obliged to wait.
When finally the authorized bureaucrat arrived, he refused to grant the farmer's request on the grounds that his claim was unsubstantiated without an investigation into the incident. "We've had many like you requesting permission to use our equipment," the man said. "Many of them are only trying to avoid purchasing their own, and in order to ensure that only those who legitimately need aide receive it, we must conduct an investigation."
"But my plow broke," the farmer protested. "We'll have to verify that," the bureaucrat replied. An investigation will be launched to look into this."
"But I will lose valuable time to plow my fields."
"That can't be helped. This is the only way to ensure fairness. Fairness is our objective, and that demands that your claims be substantiated."
The farmer returned the next day, expecting to meet the investigation team and return to his fields. The bureaucrat looked at him in surprise and informed him that it would be many more days before the investigation was approved, and then available investigators had to be found. "Everything must pass by the appropriate channels" the bureaucrat said, with pride. So the farmer waited.
Eventually, the investigation team and the farmer returned to his fields, whereupon they called on his neighbor to substantiate the story of the broken plow. The neighbor promptly did so, and the team returned to the capitol.
Much time passed, and no word came to the farmer. Finally, a letter arrived, informing him that his request had been duly granted, and he could come and pick up his temporary plow. The farmer hurried to the capitol and returned to his fields in haste, but he arrived only as the first early snows of winter began to fall.
As the farmer looked on in despair at his fields filling up with snow, his neighbor came to him and remarked, "I suppose it might have been better to let you use my plow after all."

The moral of the story is that problems are best solved at the smallest possible level where a solution is available. When problems occur, our first resort should be to turn to our family and our friends. If they are unable to help, then we should turn next to our local communities, then local governments, then state governments. And then, if each of these is unable to provide an effective solution to our problem, after all else has failed we should seek a solution at the hands of the federal government - for in such a case only they have the power and the means to adequately address the issue. But this, of course, only happens rarely; and when it does, the issue has already been analyzed and discussed and various solutions attempted, so that by the time it reaches the level of the federal government, its role has become clear to even the most casual observer, and nothing remains except to effectuate the evident solution.
Law enforcement is a good example of this process. If a boy shoplifts at a convenience store in rural Arkansas, the best solution is not for the head of Homeland Security to appoint a taskforce to track the boy down, conduct a thorough investigation, wire-tap the home, and finally - after garnering sufficient evidence - move in and make the arrest. Nor should the Chief of Police for the State of Arkansas be involved. In all likelihood, it isn't necessary for even the local police to get involved. It is enough for the owner of the convenience store to speak with the parents of the boy and allow them to discipline their child, teach him about civic responsibility, and make restitution to the store owner. This problem is best solved without any government involvement whatsoever.

Now, I understand that there are indeed problems that cannot be solved at the family, local, or state levels. A mass murderer who travels quickly from state to state, or a crime ring that extends across the nation requires law enforcement at the national level - a Federal Bureau of Investigation. Indeed, some problems cannot be adequately resolved at the national level and require a global solution; terrorism and world hunger are two such issues.
But even in these cases, the principle remains: always solve problems at the lowest level where a solution is available. Governments are a necessary evil. At most, I believe they have but few responsibilities and obligations and should not step beyond them except under extraordinary circumstances. These are:

1. To establish a constitution which sets forth the rights of every citizen of the country, and to see that these rights are protected.
2. To create and promote peace and provide for the security of its citizens from foreign invasion and oppression.
3. To create laws according to the consent of the governed and to ensure their impartial enforcement.
4. To enact policies to ensure the well being of the economy.

Outside of these duties, the changing needs of each community are to be met at the lowest level possible - ideally, at the grassroots level.
History is full of examples of great leaders who met their society's needs in this manner. Martin Luther King Jr. saw injustice and took action himself, without waiting for the Federal Government to lead the way. He led a movement that caught the attention of the entire nation, and though he held no political office was one of America's most influential leaders. When necessary, the Federal Government did act to help solve the problem of racism and segregation; but it did so in response to the actions of members of the local communities where the problem was rampant. No policy maker in Washington cooked up a plan to end segregation and fight racism. Indeed, I doubt if the Federal Government possessed - or has ever possessed - the kind of power that Dr. King wielded; certainly no policy maker or government policy could ever have had the effect on American society and that Dr. King did.
Mahatma Gandhi never held public office after his return to India and the formal end of his career as a lawyer. Yet he was more powerful than any Indian politician could ever hope to be. Indeed, had he held office in the national government of India his influence may well have lessened, not increased. His solution to every problem was to appeal to the people - to work with them, pray with them, and seek solutions to India's problems in the vast, untapped power of each individual.
What we need today is less government, and more community. Fewer laws bureaucrats, policies and policymakers; more active communities and stronger families. There is power in the mantra, "be the change you want to see in the world." And I believe that in the collective efforts of individual citizens - all of us - to address today's and tomorrow's challenges in our families, our communities, and our states, the great problems facing our nation will be resolved - with less government, not more.
Just as we all too often look outside of ourselves to find the source of our problems, we too often look far afield for the solutions. In fact, both are nearer to home than we think. In the end, perhaps President Kennedy said it best: "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."