With those questions in mind, if Government’s purpose is to prevent anarchy and be a stabilizing force, is our government actually doing it’s job? Part of the answer involves considering how the human mind works. We, as a species, tend to make decisions that solely benefit us first, without thinking too heavily on how our decisions impact others – even if we’re kindhearted souls that wouldn’t hurt a fly. We buy the car that’s most comfortable, if we can afford it, not the one that just gets us to where we need to go without leaving a huge carbon footprint. We vote for the candidates who will slash taxes, instead of voting for the candidate with nuanced positions that would ultimately be more beneficial to us as they better our educational system, support affordable, universal health care and grow the economy.
Ultimately, given how the human mind works, shouldn’t part of what government does be in making sure our personal decisions – what’s best for us at an individual level – also be decisions that benefit society as a whole? For example, all across the country, there’s a movement to buy bigger and better houses further and further away from cities, instead of restoring what we have now and using smart growth to build more housing in better locations for everyone – still beautiful, yet efficient, near public transportation and within close distance to plenty of job opportunities and open space.
Since our country has almost no uniformed development strategy, almost all the development across the country is in the form of building Big on the outskirts of cities, stretching further and further out. Can anyone actually blame individuals who choose to get the biggest bang for their buck, only at the cost of a shortish commute (which is often no longer than using public transportation, anyway)? It’s no surprise that we see more and more people commuting for ever-longer stretches with their gas-guzzling, but very comfortable SUVs. They’re only too happy to own their brand-new 30,000 square foot McMansion with a dozen automatic sprinklers that turn on three times a day, with a yard and a stellar school system to boot.
Meanwhile, they get the added bonus of not having the burden to think of all the other people they’ve left behind, or how their decisions impact others. Hey, why should they? That huge McMansion is more house than people could buy in the city, after all – and as for all the kiddies stuck in the sucky schools that they no longer have to deal with, it’s not their problem anymore. But, when everyone employs that sort of rational thought, there’s a very large and very real toll to society – one that this current generation is only beginning to universally feel. We’re creating two Americas, running out of oil and energy and polluting the world at an ever-increasing rate, all because we can’t take a step back and think things through. All of these houses and cars, etc. are coming at a huge cost – and we haven’t even paid the interest on it yet.
Instead of this nearly non-existent development strategy that’s about as organized and well thought out as a Chimp with a crayon, our society could be meeting, discussing and figuring out how to make sure individual decisions are the best decisions at the aggregate level, too. We could be making sure our urban and already-built suburban neighborhoods offer top notch schools, great public transportation and conserve as much energy as possible while affording a comfortable lifestyle (we can have our comfort and eat it too). We could be making sure there’s ample affordable housing being developed or redeveloped to keep our talented, young families and individuals in their home states, along with amazing opportunities in public higher ed and better resources to connect people with good jobs. We could be making sure we have more and better parks, with plenty of open space for people and children with an active lifestyle everywhere. We could be addressing the systemic problems that are causing budget gaps year after year, creating solutions that would solve those gaps and actually address the systemic problems we all face. We could be doing all those things, but we’re not.
In terms of innovation and solving problems, our government is doing a whole lot of nothing – and few people are standing up and doing anything about it. It’s as if the government inaction is so confusing that people have been bewildered and caught off guard for decades. It’s perhaps the worst case of Deer-Caught-in-a-Headlight yet. Except, here we are – no solutions in hand, terrible leaders in charge and with few people clamoring for change. Maybe, if people were asking the right questions – contemplating how government can best serve us – we’d cease to be ordinary folk and become the active, engaged citizens who can actually solve these messes. It’s a tall order for we, the people, who sadly seem to be comprised of more ordinary folk than the type of citizenry who wouldn’t let problems slide. The more we have of active citizens, engaged in asking and answering our common questions, the more likely we’ll be in addressing our common problems. There’s no reason why the Government can’t, and shouldn’t, be creating incentives for individuals to make the right decisions not only for themselves, but everyone else too. The ultimate question is, do we have the citizen base who can make the demands and be the force for change to make it happen?
Cross posted at Ryan’s Take.
<
p>I have to disagree with your statement that this is “how the human mind works”. It’s most likely the case for someone exposed to the messages we’ve heard from the media, advertisers, politicians, etc. over the last 25 years. How someone makes their decisions has a lot to do with how they’ve seen such decisions framed over their lifetime.
<
p>I think about my parents and grandparents generations, people who lived through the Depression and how they later stuck to practices and habits that were influenced by the times and the leadership and also necessitated by the reality of living through a depression. They were frugal, thrifty, and even “green” just because that’s how they did things. My parents would never throw anything away without a very serious effort to repair it first. When my grandmothers cooked, nothing went to waste. When any of them no longer had a use for something, they would look for someone else who needed it rather than just throw it away. My Dad was a union carpenter who was not only concerned with his family’s well being, but also the well-being of his co-workers and their families. I don’t want to bore you with a longer litany – I think you get the picture. It wasn’t just about “me”.
<
p>
<
p>I think it’s a two-way street. We need a citizenry that gets back to including the “greater good” in their thinking, but I don’t think we get there without leadership that is willing to reframe the role of government and work hard on that message. We need to get back to electing leaders who ask us “what we can do for our country”. Then the citizenry and leadership both work off and for each other to create the sort of society I believe you are looking for.
<
p>Finally, I wasn’t intending on making this a pro-Obama comment and I only mention this because I think it answers a question many people have: This is a big part of why Obama hits home with so many people. We see him as just the right sort of leader to get this done. This is the “change” I’m looking for.
<
p>Interesting topic Ryan – thanks!
<
p>The government, back then, took a leadership role in helping people make decisions that were good for them and everyone else. The best example is all the work projects – they gave people jobs, and helped create infrastructure that’s lasted all the way until the present.
<
p>I think the Government needs to get back in the business of leading by example, but this time through setting policies that encourage people to invest in renewable energy, create smart (and comfortable) housing, etc. In the end, not only do I think people won’t be making sacrifices, but on the aggregate the standard of living would skyrocket. But, like I said, it requires government nudging people in the right direction for everyone.
Some of the basic questions you pose come down to the classic liberal/progressive vs. conservative debate; big government vs. small government.
<
p>You asked the question “Why do we have governments and what purposes do they best serve?” And you answered it as follows:
<
p>
<
p>My answer is different from yours: Government exists to do the things that you can not do for yourself.
<
p>Admittedly this is as equally vague as yours, but you can see the fundamental difference between the two.
<
p>You go on to talk about regulating personal decisions like what car you drive, where you live, how you develop your property and other personal decisions. I see some of the things you propose as a direct affront to the personal freedoms we are guaranteed by the Constitution.
<
p>Specifically, you talk about urban sprawl and about how it should be limited and prevented. I completely disagree. People are free to decide for themselves what is important to them. Some people want wipe open spaces and are willing to drive a little longer to and from work and others may want to be close to “all the action” and will accept living in a small cramped apartment to do so. The important part is that people are free to chose how they want to live. Government can promote smart growth, and we do through things like the brownfields program and chapter 40b, but should not go to the point of restricting development of personal property to do so.
<
p>As to your point about the kids left behind by urban sprawl, what are their parents doing to approve the situation? This goes to another tenant of conservatism, decisions should be made at the local most level thereby making the government more responsive to the people. That is why decisions such as school funding should be made at the city and town level. If the people in that city in town put a high emphasis on education, then they fund it. If the town you live in doesn’t but a high emphasis on education and you do then you have two clear options: 1) get involved, run for school committee, selectmen, etc. and work to change to the mind set in your town or 2) move. You could add a third option, privately educate your own children.
<
p>On of the biggest points I disagree with you about is this “We, as a species, tend to make decisions that solely benefit us first, without thinking too heavily on how our decisions impact others.” I think, and this is a free-market position, that people will make decisions that are in the best interest of the state or country but that high taxes have lulled people into thinking that they no longer have to make those decisions. Remember the “buy American” movement. In the 50s-70s people wouldn’t but the cheaper foreign cars because it was bad for the American economy. Now everyone is flocking to Wal-Mart to but inferior products mostly made in China.
<
p>There’s a lot more I would like to post but unfortunately I have to get to work.
<
p>I do like this discussion of the fundamentals of politics, thanks for bringing it up.
I’m against the government forcing decisions upon people, not against it giving a little nudge (incentives to make the right decision, taxes on making very, very costly ones to society, etc.)
<
p>
<
p>Many of the parents in a position to do something about it are the ones who did do something about it – they left, generations ago in many cases.
<
p>I think that you need to take the system of governance into account when trying to define government.
<
p>We live in a Constitutional Republic (commonly referred to as a Democracy) nationally, and various forms of representative democracies locally. Our leaders are elected freely. Other countries where leaders are not elected also have “governments”. They clearly do different things.
<
p>Since we have the power to change our “leaders”, I would offer the perspective that “government” exists to pursue the goals that we collectively decide we want to pursue. And “we” is defined using the governing constitution or charter — generally accepted as “majority vote of our representatives who were elected by the majority of voters, respectful of minority interests protected by the constitution”.
<
p>Government is not separate from us. We are the government.
<
p>Once you get past that, then the debate is simply “what do we collectively want to do?”
<
p>If a city decided that it wanted to confer prepaid health care on its residents, it could probably do so. It wouldn’t practically work because of residential mobility, but it could still be done.
<
p>Would that be “government forcing” something on us? I can see how some might say that if they were on the “losing” side of the vote, but that’s disingenuous — part of living in a democracy is that you don’t get your way all the time. That doesn’t mean that “government” is oppressing you, that just means that most people don’t agree with you.
It was an assumption people would think I was talking about representative democracies – if I was living in Sudan, obviously I would be asking a whole different set of questions.
<
p>I’m directly speaking to what “we” want to do with our democracy. I think we, the people, need to urge our government to create policies that help people make the right decisions. Right now, it’s mostly business interests that decide what development policies we have – but we could create incentives that would help nudge people toward conservation, toward renewable energy such as solar power, toward smart growth that situated near jobs and public transportation and toward the creation of addition affordable housing so we can keep our talented young college graduates in the state.