Who Needs a Government, Anyway?

My intention in starting this blog was not--and is not--to create a political soapbox.  To that end, my plan was to steer clear of anything blatantly political for some time yet.  Well, a couple of things came together, pressed my buttons, and got the juices flowing.  So today, gentle readers, this blogger must inform you that you are about to be treated to a Major Political Rant, complete with widespread and gratuitous use of italics.

To kick off my rant, perhaps I may be permitted to begin by referring to another rant composed by someone far more talented than myself.

Those who spend a lot of time online may have heard in one way or another about an open letter published by author Stephen King.  The main topic is taxation of the rich, why it needs to happen, and why arguments against taxing the rich are, to put it bluntly, bunk.  Actually, King uses harsher words throughout the letter (fair warning, there is foul language) I honestly think it is well worth the read.  The whole can be found here.   To get at an important point, however, here is a (free-of-bad-words) quote:

It’s true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions. My wife and I give away roughly $4 million a year to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organizations that underwrite the arts. Warren Buffett does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs. All fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.

What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.

In sum?  Our society has responsibilities. As citizens, those responsibilities are our responsibilities, and in its most direct form that means that those with the money pay taxes to fund public programs.  In other words (insert scary music here) government doing stuff.  But, some skeptics ask, isn't that just "asking the government to do everything for us"?  Because, hey, who really needs the government, anyway?   To begin the rebuttal, the defense calls to the witness stand the sheer brilliance that is Monty Python:

The message here is that, being part of a society, a civilization, confers a plethory of important benefits upon individuals, including physical protection, access to resources and information, and adjudication of conflicts.  These benefits are often so fundamental and pervasive as to be taken for granted (like they are in the video clip).  But being part of a society is also an implicit agreement--an agreement share not just the benefits of being in society, but also the resources and responsibilities that are the foundation of those benefits.  The building of roads and schools, the equipping, training and staffing of Police and Fire stations, the commissioning of necessary but long-running scientific research--all these things take effort.  All these things require money.  None of these things, when done right, produce the sort of fast profits that provate companies are lookng for, so the private sector is not going to do these things.  Even if the private sector tries, it will never be able to do so on the proper scale or in a way that keeps the whole nation's needs in mind.  Therefore all these things require an entity, not for profit, empowered to act in the name of the public and charged to act for the public good.  That entity is the government.

Don't believe me?  Here's another quote for us:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In other words, if "the people" wanted to have something that could take care of their needs as a whole, then the thing to do...was set up a government.  Yes, this is according to the Constitution.  Can a government become unhealthy and function in a way that is harmful to the public it governs?  It can.  Does that mean that the answer is to not have a government, or to negate any role of the government in our lives?  The Founding Fathers clearly thought not--their answer was to take the positive role of Government as a given, and use that as the basis to build a government properly. And, really, it's not necessarily the form of the government that makes it a good one or a bad one; a monarch can be a wise and thoughtful statesman who governs his people fairly and well; a democracy or republic can become corrupt.  A government can be so large that it becomes inefficient (see the origin of the descriptor "Byzantine") or so small that it becomes driven by personalities or a few individuals' greed. 

No, the deeper issue is not the form of a government, or what "size" it is.  Nor is it so simplistic as "how much" it collects in taxes.  The issue is when a government loses sight of its role looking out for the common good (or "general Welfare" as the Founders put it).  And that is what is so wrong about the rabid cries to "get the government out of our lives," suggesting that the answer to everything lies in the private sector and that the government should basically sit there and do nothing.  That's what is so wrong with reviling the very notion of taxation or government aid programs.  That is what is wrong with "letting the private sector take care of it".  The government exists for a reason.  It has a purpose.  If the government does not seem to be doing a good job of fulfilling that purpose, then by all means hold it accountable.  In a democracy, that's what a ballot box is for.  But by saying the government has no purpose, that it can do no good, you are letting the government (and by extension society) off the hook and inviting the very corruption and failure you are claiming to despise. 

As unique and indivudual as we may be, let's be honest with ourselves: we also exist as part of a whole.  When we are threatened, or when we suffer misfortune, we expect that whole to protect us.  It's not always perfect, but by and large it does its job.  The firemen will arrive to douse the flames.  The police will respond to the scene of an accident.  The schools will continue to produce doctors to treat our ailments, and lawyers to defend us against our accusers.  The research that will bring us tomorrow's technologies is being done.  No matter how much you consider yourself a great, rugged individual, no matter how much you cry "freedom!" you do count on your fellow man and your nation.  They'll come for you when you are in need, and it is your job to be there for them when they suffer.  In layman's terms, that could be called "fairness'.  It could also be called by the shorthand preferred by eighteenth and ninteenth century philosophers (whose thinking, incidentally, heavily informed our Constitution's Framers): they called it the Social Compact (a.k.a Social Contract).  

Everybody is taken care of by their fellow man, and everybody takes a turn caring for their fellow man.  If you want to grumble when it's your turn--your turn to do jury duty, your turn to pay taxes, your turn to respect someone else's space--well, I can't stop you from grumbling.  But I can expect you to do it anyway, and expect you to acknowlege that it is your responsibility, and I can call people like the Tea-Partiers out on it when they put forth their false--and supremely selfish--notions.

So just who does need a government, anyway?  We all do.  It's time we said so.