The Proper Function of Government

How can we say something is or is not a proper function of government?

Consider the difference in the level of abstraction of two questions. "Who should provide garbage service?" "What is the proper relationship of government to citizens' activities?"

In the analysis of Metro OptIn survey of November, the distinction between the ideological frameworks of the pollsters and liberatarians leads to the latter framework asserting that even asking the question about who should provide various services suggests a certain framework in which such a question is appropriate and necessary. Why then would I as a libertarian assert asking the questions is inappropriate and already exhibits a certain bias?

The problem lies in the superficial level of the questions. By focusing on individual services at the concrete level, the abstract problem of the proper relationship of government to human activity remains hidden. We can answer the polling question but the real question concerns why such questions are generated. They are generated because from one ideological framework it is proper to use government to solve various problems depending on the general will of the people. Within that ideological framework, the appropriateness of decisions about government depends on viable processes of representative democracy, not on any theory of government, or at least none that are expressly used to justify the process.
We have two methods at work. In the first, specific democratic decisions are made without an analytic framework. After the implementation of those decisions, additional decisions are made regarding how to change the first decision to make it work better. Objective evaluation is limited to concerns of which implementation methods need refining, not the evaluation of methods of government versus free activity. This first method of making issue specific decisions about concrete services gives atomistic, pragmatic policies without theoretical coherence.

On the other hand, a more advanced framework begins with a theory of government that serves a priori in the analysis. As an a priori framework not bound to a specific concrete service by government, such an analytic framework integrates and subordinates the individual decisions about services to the whole of the framework. Analysis becomes abstract since it operates one level above concrete decisions about specific services. Thus, the concrete questions about individual services implies a framework in which concrete decisions must be made. On the contrary, for a framework based on a theory of the relationship between government and its empirical science of political economy, to ask the question about specific services and even the need to poll citizens in order to determine the general will implies the need for such a process that only comes out of a pro-government ideological framework. If a citizen takes part in such polling, just as with voting, that participation lends a legitimacy that the citizen may not feel is proper. Hence, the abstention from participation may itself be based on a quite profound analytic framework of political economy.

In short, it is a matter of two different levels of abstraction, not two alternative choices similar to complementary, disjunctive subclasses. Hence, to raise the question of the proper role of government asks for analysis at a higher level of abstraction, something the first framework by definition is unable to do. If it were otherwise, the polling format would reflect the problem regarding the proper functions of government. By seeming to ignore this deeper issue, the framework effectively limits itself to concrete analysis of who should perform functions or what priorities should government assign when from a more abstract framework, the need for polling already implies a framework of unlimited government based on democratic will.

Collective Decisions

More analysis of polling.

Who do you think should provide the following services?

Select one in each row

	Metro	Another government body	Private company	Don't know
Garbage and recycling
Oregon Zoo
Regional land use planning
Regional transportation planning
Maintaining natural areas
Managing the Convention Center/Expo Center
Regional mapping and GIS

Is your opinion of Metro Regional Government:

Select one

Very favorable
Somewhat favorable
Not too favorable
Not at all favorable
Don't know

Here is an example of the exclusionary bias your ideological framework seems to be performing since it seems to exclude a libertarian framework. The question of "who" should provide the various services forecloses a response from someone who believes government should not attempt to decide who should perform those functions. If a service has value, then someone will want to offer that value in exchange for value, a service in exchange for payment. Regional land use planning from at least one framework of political economy is quite clearly an inappropriate function to be attempted collectively. Five of the services do allow "private company" but I'm afraid by that you mean government would issue franchises or contracts. How would someone from my framework respond to reflect that view that we shouldn't be collectively making these decisions about who should provide services. That decisions is not a proper function of democratic (or more properly republican) governance.

Getting Out of the Polling Box

Polling often asks questions from within a particular framework. When we are out-of-their-box of the framework that appears to be biasing the questions, we may uncomfortable with many of the responses. The polling programs sometimes won't allow an omission or "no response"; a choice must be made among unsatisfactory responses. The comment box provides a way out the biasing framework with the obvious disadvantage that the report of the polling results may not include the comments.

None-the-less, here is how I responded to the local Metro OptIn survey:

1st Page—Green Jobs versus Growth

Do you agree or disagree that governments in Oregon should pursue policies that specifically promote "green jobs"?

Select one

Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know

How much more per bill would you be willing to pay so that your household's primary source of energy is from renewables?

Select one

$0
Less than $5
$5-$10
$11-15
$16-$20
$21-30
$31-$40
$41-$50
More than $50
Don't know

Some people want to emphasize economic growth to assure job opportunities for our children. Others say that limits should be placed on economic growth to preserve the environment for our children. Which way do you feel?

Select one in each row

Economic Growth for Future Jobs			Both Equal	Limits on Growth to Preserve Environment
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Don't know

This poll presents an obstacle if the intent is to allow involvement of all citizens. It is difficult to "opt in" to public discussion when the poll excludes certain frameworks such as libertarian responses. Polls are single answer responses not designed to reveal people's reasoning or factual basis, and much of the polling questions seem to reflect a pro-government framework sometimes to the extent of excluding any libertarian response.

What seems to indicate a pro-government bias is that the question responses are limited too much, mostly by presuming government must be involved. The responses seems to ask only questions of which issues and to what extent government should get involved. Obviously if a teacher takes the class out to the playground and asks whether the students want to play basketball or football or some other game or even what rules they might like to use, the questions don't concern whether it is a proper role for the teacher to forcing all students into a group game. The same is true for government; by presuming a democratic process regarding an issue and polling citizens, the fundamental problem of whether the issue is a proper function government is not addressed. This democratic process that forces citizens into collective decision-making produces a ratchet effect of government involvement. By avoiding the underlying problem of the proper function of government, this process cannot move us towards wise public policy, only towards more government planning and control.

For example, no matter how your question of jobs versus environment is answered, it requires the assumption that government needs this information so it can emphasize one or the other. There is no hint of the choice between using government to solve "our" problems and allowing the natural, constructive activities of citizens to solve problems. It may be that the absence of this third choice—that of allowing the constructive activities of free citizens to solve problems—is omitted either because it simply seems unworkable, or impractical, or perhaps that such a small minority holds the opinion that it isn't worth considering. But wise policy isn't majority opinion; it more likely the more in-depth and more intelligent understanding that runs counter to popular opinion. Popular opinion gives political cover but it doesn't provide wisdom; in fact it can, history shows us, be quite destructive. To rise above an ideological assertion requires careful research and explanation of the constructive or destructive powers of either government activity or citizens' free activity; only by careful scientific research and the most advanced theory of government can we know that government actions will first do no harm. It appears the general finding of comparative research between government methods and the free activity of free minds and free markets seems to quite clearly demonstrate that centralized government planning and regulation regularly leads to destructive results while free activity tends to produce the constructive advancements of the social good and welfare of a society.

Wealth and well being, environmental protection, efficient use of resources, social harmony, human rights, all are properties of free societies, not government controlled societies. Demonstrating the wisdom of turning the problem solving for an issue over to government requires a careful, deep scientific study of the functioning of government versus the functioning of citizens' free activity. But in that case, such wisdom grounded in scientific research is a bit awkward since it wouldn't depend on polling, would it?