The Myth of Good Governance
How ‘Good Intentions’ by the State doesn’t convert into ‘Good Results’
As seen by the proponents of the establishment of “The State”, the Government is composed of individuals who work selflessly for the “common good” and who are dedicated, through the election process, with the power of lawmaking in order to impact changes in the conduct of those considered exterior to the state. According to the supporters of the Government, those who work for the state deserve particular rights and prerogatives and respect because of their devotion and the immense authority they wield. Even the nation’s ‘leader’, who is sometimes regarded as a cult figure, has a cult-like following of the so-called state, who identify intensely with him and hang on his every word, and who look to him for national direction.
Compare this to how they demonize the private sector. They regard them as selfish, self-interested, and unjustly exploiting the consumer and the employee, and they must be taken down and strictly regulated by the Government. People who work in the private sector don’t get nearly the same respect as those who work in government, and the statist is continuously critical of any private sector surpluses, such as the acquisition and accumulation of considerable wealth. Anyone who believes that the private sector is inherently flawed and in need of government interventions and regulation is confirming the State’s proposition.
Progressives and even ironically, conservatives that support a State model, think, on the other hand, that they have the means to build and preserve “good government”: offer the executive branch more power. Consequently, the executive branch, which would comprise of “non-self-serving” bureaucrats, would allow resources to be “properly” directed by removing decision-making power from corrupt politicians and enabling people with the best intentions to make important decisions instead of corrupt politicians.
The Misconception of the “Common Good”
In reality, a “society” is nothing more than a group of people living in close proximity to one another. People are distinct and different in their personalities, abilities, goals, and views as well as their requirements. Only that person subjectively knows what he/she wants out of life, and their desires may change over time. There was no one else who could truly grasp his point of view, except for this one individual. However, does anyone really believe that ‘an algorithm’ or a code that could find a set of objectives that satisfied everyone’s unique desires at once, and which could update itself continuously as those desires changed? It’s a wonder that we don’t even use one. Today’s progressives believe implicitly that government officials are omniscient and can define what the “common good” is.
It is possible that voters are not letting politicians arbitrate the so-called “common good” by themselves, as elected officials reflect their citizens’ opinions through the political system. It remains to be seen which politician’s campaign platform perfectly matches each constituent’s personal definition of the ‘Common Good,’ and which politician, once elected, acts faithfully to his campaign platform? This question is even more difficult to answer when considering those who voted against this politician and those who did not vote at all.
This collection of beings in government may be able to agree on a definition of “common good,” but they never actually announce their conclusions at the end of each election so we may determine if we agree, and then track whether or not they are behaving in accordance with that definition. Each election also changes the composition of this group. Unless the meaning of “common good” changes with each election, does this mean that each freshly elected group coincidentally comes to exactly the same definition as the prior group? For those who have opted for the second option, does this map well with each voter’s changing perspectives?
A state-supporting progressive who contends that changing constantly conceptions of the “common good” is impractical and that the best we can hope for is an election cycle, is ironically implying that this is precisely an argument for a stateless society. Without coercion from others or coercion from others, each individual might continuously modify and acquire his or her preferences at his or her own pace. . Just because the statist cannot imagine a better system doesn’t mean such a system cannot exist.
It’s tough to wonder what would happen if one citizen opposed the concept of “common good” offered by the elected group of legislators after every election. Why does the notion that a single individual is opposed to a government’s definition of the “common good” inevitably disqualify it as such? As long as you accept “majority rule” as the principle behind defining “the common good,” this isn’t a problem for a state supporting progressive or a conservative. “Common good” is being defined in the vernacular, as the “majority good,” although this is a contradiction in terms (and, as noted above, really not even that)
“Public Service” is an oxymoron
Rather than “serving” the people, The so-called Politician, aka government servant, orders them around, including forcing them to pay his salary (via taxes) and buy his products under the fear of coerced captivity.
Private sector workers serve the public by offering things for sale and only getting paid if clients find the provided products valuable enough to part with their money voluntarily.
In any other context such as a daylight robber, such a person would be severely chastised. Proponents of the State, on the other hand, applaud state officials for accomplishing excellent things for others in society.
The Government — A (in this case) forces B to give money to C. Why is this praiseworthy and compassionate? To aid C, A may donate his own resources, or he could try to persuade others to donate their own. Either of those activities would be deserving of a lot of commendation. If B refuses to provide money to C, he will be imprisoned, which would be a hard hit on the head. However, this strategy is not only unethical in the vernacular sense, in the sense that it acknowledges the right of certain entities to coerce others people, but it is also extremely vulnerable to misuse. To what extent does it matter if C has a true need, as determined by some objective standard?
The Collectivist Experiment of Communist China
There is a classic Keynesian excuse that comes even on our economic textbooks: Government spending is so vital to motivating investment (Never mind that this trick has never worked in all of human history.)
This is instead a grand plan to loot the private sector on behalf of the Communist Party, which will then spend the money bolstering its power. After communism was overthrown, China’s economic recovery has been one of the most astonishing in economic history. It took only 15 years to modernize a shattered and poor country. As the private sector flourished, the size of the state reduced almost by default. Unfortunately, this was not part of the original design. A new tolerance for free economic activity paved the way for it to occur. Private enterprise continued to flourish as a result of the state’s defensive posture in an effort to protect its position in power.
Mao had this belief that he was an expert at growing grain, but he was mistaken. Seeds were planted at five to ten times their normal density because he believed that “seeds are happier when they grow together”. Salt rose to the surface as plants died in the dry soil. So, sparrows were eradicated to prevent birds from eating grain. This resulted in an enormous surge of parasites. In the past few decades, erosion and flooding have become commonplace. Because tea was seen as decadent and capitalistic, tea plantations were converted to rice fields. Mechanical equipment designed to service these farms did not work and there were no spare parts. So Mao refocused his attention on industry, which was compelled to appear in the same places as agriculture.
It was the lack of a central plan, China’s restoration as a civilized society occurred. Not interfering with business was a key factor in its success! no policy, nor constitution, or even a law didn’t make a difference in this case, either.
The government has never been able to improve its performance (an impossibility). It was, and still is, a disaster. Simply said, it wasn’t as horrible as in the past since it didn’t do as much. There is little doubt that all states are waiting for a crisis. The quake in the southwest was a good reason to intervene. Except for war, an economic crisis is the best justification for state growth.
States are defined by their belief that they are superior to society, and that they are there to fix the market and human failures. Minimalist or totalitarian states are based on a presupposition of superiority. How does it know when the time to intervene, and where to intervene? Given its inherent wisdom and superiority over society, the state is the only entity capable of deciding when to intervene, as well as what to intervene on behalf of.
As Ludwig von Mises put it, “no government is naturally liberal”. Those who believe in “limited government” can learn a lot from this.
Conclusion
Politicians and legislators should not be our ultimate goal. People, families, and friends as well as intellectual leaders and our religious institutions will be responsible for most of the change if it occurs. Changing social and economic behaviour can only be achieved by refusing to utilize coercion, compulsion, government orders, and violent force. Because of this, it is inevitable that the government will demand economic equality and obedience to politicians who attain power and promote an environment that stifles the freedom of all people if these restrictions are not accepted. People that are responsible and want to succeed will then be able to do so.
