What Is the Proper Role of Government?

Ronald Reagan once said, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."  This quote comes to mind every time I hear someone bellyaching about how the government is not doing enough about high gas prices, the mortgage crisis, unemployment, poverty, hunger, and other modern maladies. People who make such complaints obviously believe that government could find the answers to all their problems, if only elected officials would try hard enough.

Since this misguided sentiment is so prevalent among the public, politicians running for office exploit it by making outlandish promises, to include fixing everything that the current officeholders have been unable to do anything about. We see it all the time. Then, when those politicians get into office and don't (or can't) deliver on their promises, the cycle of murmuring begins all over again, with a new batch of candidates rising up and promising all kinds of governmental cures to all that ails society. 

It may come as a surprise to some people, but governments do not control everything. They don't control most things. They can't. In fact, history has taught us that whenever governments try to take charge of things that should be left to the free market, matters only get worse. For example, look at what the so-called war on poverty has done to the poor in America. It has inadvertently instilled generations of people with such a sense of entitlement that they depend on government for their livelihoods and have no desire to better themselves. It has created scores of low-rent public housing projects that have become centers for urban blight, and where the truly needy are forced to live along side violent criminals and drug addicts. It has broken up families by encouraging fathers to stay away from their children, resulting in more unwed births and single-parent homes, which in turn have resulted in more kids turning to a life of crime. And the war on poverty is just one example out of many I could have chosen.

So what is the proper role of government? It is to do for its citizens what they cannot reasonably do for themselves as individuals. These things include (but are not limited to) national defense, the building and maintenance of public roads, highways, and buildings, law enforcement, and the stewardship of national parks and lands. The government is not supposed to provide a living for its citizens; it's supposed to get out of the way and let them provide a living for themselves. It's not supposed to play Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor; it's just supposed to make sure everyone plays by the same rules, without regard to the outcome. It's not supposed to intervene every time large portions of the populace make bad decisions; it's just supposed guard their freedom to make those decisions. It's not supposed to try to solve all of society's ills; it's supposed to (in most cases) create an atmosphere that will encourage the free market to do so.

►Reprint Rights◄

Log in to become a member of Terry Mitchell's Fan Club!

Comments on this article:

» left by Jennifer Cuddy ^(1,504)
Jennifer Cuddy (94 days 9 hours ago.)

Terry,

 

You know someday, your day will come when you will need a helping hand. And until then, I don't think that you have it in you to have empathy for those who are less fortunate. I truly pity you -- for you will fall, and you will fall very hard.

 

I'm sorry. Good bye.

Respond to this comment

» left by Terry Mitchell ^(2,789)
Terry Mitchell (94 days ago.)

Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer ... You still don't get it, do you? Just because I'm against the government's taxpayer-funded charity doesn't mean I'm personally stingy. Didn't you read one of my earlier comments where I said I believe individuals should give away as much as they can to help others?

 

If you give away more than 10% of your gross income to charitable organizations each year, then you have a right to criticize me. Otherwise, hold your peace. It's not what you say, it's what you do -- and I have the copies to my tax returns to prove it!

Respond to this comment

» left by jennifer cuddy (93 days 10 hours ago.)

I'm very glad that you give to charity. But I have devoted my entire career to helping others who are less fortunate--I work in the Public Health sector, and will soon become involved in Health Policy, Employment Law and Civil Rights.

 

But I disagree that we do not need to be governed. We just need to become more aware of government regulations. We need empowerment, and I fear that Americans are becoming too self centered and desensitised to those who 'are not in our back yards'. We have an obligation. Capitalism is based upon the assumption that we are all created equal, and are given equal opportunities in life from the get go. But this is naive. Do you honestly believe that children want to become alcoholics when they grow up, or that they would rather receive food stamps? Do you think that they want the cheapest cuts of meat, and the very cheapest foods: foods that are the most highly processed and unhealthy. Who knows? Maybe it is their poor diet that actually influences their often criminal behaviour and/or decreases their IQ's? Most people do not go out and beg for food because they are just too lazy to work. It is most often the psychologically ill who are homeless. And people do not abuse drugs because they feel good about themselves. These are extraordinary desperate acts.

 

 

Respond to this comment

» left by Terry Mitchell ^(2,789)
Terry Mitchell (92 days 22 hours ago.)

Jennifer, it's very commendable that you work in the field of public health. That is indeed a noble line of work.

 

I never said we did not need to be governed. People need to be governed or there would be total anarchy. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. What I meant was that we do not need to have the government manage our finances (among other things) for us. Nor should it take money from one person to give it to another. That is not the government's job. If I want to help the needy, that should be my decision, not the government's. Generosity should be an individual choice. I've found that most liberals are very generous -- with other people's money! They should put their money where their mouth is and give out of their own pockets for a change. And if they want higher taxes, they should make them voluntary and volunteer to pay them themselves. Strangely enough, that is something they almost never do.  Unless someone voluntarily gives away more from their own pockets than I, they have no right to lecture me about generosity.

 

And don't lecture me about the poor either. Have you ever been poor? I have. I grew up dirt poor in the housing projects. My parents were old, uneducated, and had little income. Many times we barely had enough food to eat (want to talk about a poor diet?). On holidays like Christmas, I was grateful just to have a decent meal, let alone presents. If being poor caused people to become drug addicts or criminals, I would surely have been one. However, I have never even tried illegal drugs or alcohol and have never been convicted of even a misdemeanor or fined. How many people can honestly say that? In spite of all my disadvantages growing up, I graduated in the top 10% of my high school class, and I now have a great career, own my home, have a plenty in savings, and have no debts other than a mortgage. If I could do it, others can do it too. It just takes will power. By the way, a lot of the kids I went to school with did do drugs, but about half of them were the rich and middle class kids. Go figure!

Respond to this comment

» left by jennifer cuddy (92 days 14 hours ago.)

Well, forgive me for being so argumentative,Terry, but I find it a tad hypocritical of you to condemn government handouts when you claim to have been reared in a housing project. If you had in fact, grown up as poor as you claim, then you and your family would have certainly been provided with a great deal of public welfare that is no longer in existence. For example: do you remember elementary school meal vouchers?

 

And I'm not sure how old you are, but you must admit, that being 'dirt poor' now is by far and away a more dangerous and desperate situation than it was in your day.  

 

I think that you are forgetting.

Respond to this comment

» left by Terry Mitchell ^(2,789)
Terry Mitchell (92 days 9 hours ago.)

Just so you know, my chronological age is 47. Are you saying poor people got more help when I was growing up in the 60's and 70's than they do now? Get real. Yes, my brothers and I did get free lunches during part of the time we went to school. However, many poor kids today also get free breakfast. That didn't exist when I was growing up, and neither did Head Start. Also, some poor kids today get assistance with school supplies. Didn't get that myself. In fact, I often had to do without. My family did got a few measly food stamps. However, I now see people in grocery stores loading up their carts with more food than I saw in months as a kid -- and they purchase it all with food stamps! You complained earlier about poor kids today not getting the best cuts of meat. Well, when I was a kid, I would have been glad to have gotten ANY cut of meat with most meals. We had many meals in which all we had was a bowl of beans.

 

However, I have to agree with you that being poor is more dangerous now than it was when I was growing up. I grew up in housing projects in which one could leave their doors unlocked at night, believe it or not. That's because only the truly needed lived there and they were just as decent as anyone else. Today, these places are infested with criminals and drug addicts that should be in jail but, thanks to liberal politicians and do-gooders like yourself, are not. Instead, they are allowed to live alongside the truly needy and pose a danger to them.

Respond to this comment

» left by Robert Melaccio, Sr. ^(6,349)
Robert Melaccio, Sr. (93 days 19 hours ago.)

Terry, yes "create an atmosphere that will encourage the free market to do so." In my opinion that is and has been a complete failure and  those who have sworn before God to preserve, protect and defend this nation and the constitution fall woefully short. Those who swore to provide for the general good and welfare fall woefully short of even who they profess they believe in and are. It doesnot show in their works, in what they have done or failed to do. Yes you stated their role excellently, that is by protecting the citizens of this land from greed and exploitation, from usury, from harm and from those who would not pay fair wages, steal, connieve, manipulate and take. To protect them from those who have that want more at the expense of others. No not responsible for every individuals actions but not allowing their destuction or crushing them and providing no hope  by allowing the breaking of law, usury and other evils to flourish.  I agree with much of what you said but and that but is signifcant. Our  leaders at every level have failed. It is in freedom, justice and equality for all that we all prosper.  Like I have always stated making money is not an evil thing it is how and what you do with it that creates the problem.  Respectfully,

Respond to this comment

» left by Anonymous (93 days 4 hours ago.)

I applaud your comments and insight. I know there will be people who have become dependent on government entitlements that will think you are an unfeeling person, because if you had your way many, most or all of those entitlements would go away.

 

The truth is you see the abilities and limitations of government very clearly. Governments do not create anything, and it is almost impossible to hold them legally accountable for mismanagement. Governments tax and spend. Like you described, a portion of it is necessary. That portion is a very small part of what governments today do. Does anyone really think the average senator with signature authority to tap the US Treasury knows the value of a dollar? What other job can legally create money out of thin air? Money has to be earned by someone before it has value - just like the gift card you pull off the supermarket shelf has to be paid for before it has value. Until newly printed money is earned by someone, all it does is dilute the value of the existing money in circulation.

 

Just about all of the money in circulation today is borrowed. That is why interest rate decisions by the federal reserve have so much impact on our economy. Many people tell me that the money they receive from their paycheck is not borrowed. I remind them that the company that paid them very likely borrowed that money. They may not have borrowed it, but their employer did. Corporate shareholders are lenders.

 

Less government is better. Our financial system today is very unstable because most of the money in circulation is borrowed. What happens if all the lenders called in their outstanding loans? Theoretically the money would have to be repaid. That will never happen because there is not enough money in circulation to repay it all. The congress would pass this and that legislation, print more play money to pay off the called in debt and therefore dilute the value of a dollar even more. That is the way it works today. That irresponsibility is why the smaller the government the better.

Respond to this comment

» left by Robert Melaccio, Sr. ^(6,349)
Robert Melaccio, Sr. (92 days 15 hours ago.)

My apologies I butted in because I agree in principal with much of what you stated. I too would like less government and certainly less entitlements, yet there are some who cannot survive without help and some who milk the cow. Too bad those entitlements aren't going for the most part to citizens. I don't see where Terry or you addressed the issues or root causes of our nations woe, that is for average Americans, the have nots? Not that good points were made but in my opinion no reply to the  causes.  What this Congress and all the ones before hand have done or failed to do? TWhat are they. Well Congress can and does control laws that allow Usury, explotatin, harrassement even in the most trying of circumstances. It isn't always people's desire for more that bring on a situation. How about so called Immigration law that they make and implement that abuse Americans and those trying to come legally? This is what average people are upset about. Yet I do not see the upraor from those that have. Like the President stated, they have no problems. People can talk all day long about trade, but it is rarely fair, smaller governments, never happen and all the rest but where the tire meets the road, no answers and those that have no problems, like I said have all the answers that help them but none to solve the real issues at hand. Good job guys but lets hear about that?

Respond to this comment

Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question: