What is the Purpose of Government

What is the purpose of government? Philosophers and scholars have
debated this question since the beginning of time, so we're dealing
with weighty matters here. What I write here is not intended to be
that heavy, just (as usual) some musings.

If you listen to the libertarians, they'd tell you that in this
country, the Constitution tells us what the role of the federal
government is, and that what the Constitution circumscribes is
actually not a whole lot. If you listen to the liberals, they'd tell
you there are so many noble things that ought to be done and that can
be done in this day and age, and government can and should be doing
those things, because it has the resources and/or clout and/or moral
obligation.

I tend to look at things from an economist's standpoint, and clearly
in between government doing nothing and government doing everything
there are important though limited roles that governments ought to
play. Economists speak of "market failure" when they discuss areas in
which people and markets, if left to themselves, will achieve a less
than ideal equilibrium; those areas, then, are where governments can
and should intervene, and everywhere else, let the people and the
markets reach a better equilibrium. For example, there's not enough
incentive for any one person or organization to build a park in their
community, but if a government does it for them everyone'll benefit.

Fair enough. But who's to say what is an ideal equilibrium? If a
perfect match between the supply of labor and the demand for labor
means that every twentieth person who wants a job won't be able to
obtain one, is that acceptable? Some people would say yes and some
no. If a perfect match between producers and consumers leads to a
society in which there are very rich people and very poor people, is
that acceptable? Again, some people would say yes and some no. What
I'm trying to say (and doing a poor job of it) is that sometimes there
are market failures where it makes sense for governments to intervene.
But sometimes the market's just fine, and we don't like the end
result.

Still looking at things from an economic standpoint, many people would
say government exists to protect the people, primarily through
enacting laws, enforcing them, and punishing those who break them.
This is not a function that any one person or organization would be
properly motivated to do in a completely free marketplace, and so the
government steps in with its authority and its resources to provide
such things as police, national defense, and courts. Fair enough.
But what does that actually mean, in terms of the depth of that
responsibility? Where is a city supposed to be, in the continuum of
providing an acceptable minimum level of policing or providing
complete safety for its residents and visitors? When a person is sent
to a state prison, is it to keep him or her from society, punish him
or her for a law broken, and/or provide rehabilitation? When should
the federal government butt into a local matter to address lawlessness
or injustice? Depending on how big or small you want your government
to be, how much you trust or distrust government, your answers to
these questions will be very different.

Still looking at things from an economic standpoint, many people
consider government a conduit to lower transaction costs. In other
words, a lot of roles governments play can be taken care of just as
logically without government help, but the fact that it can be
centralized into one large bureaucracy does have its advantages of
consistency and efficiency. For example, despite Houston's relative
success in city planning without any meaningful zoning ordinances,
most people would agree that it makes sense for the laying out of
different uses of space to have some level of coordination and
deliberation. But again we have a dilemma, for we are torn between
the gain in centralizing (economies of scale) and the gain in
decentralizing (faster, more knowledgeable responses).

The great thing about the American way of government is that we can
argue how big or small government should be, and that this argument,
far from ever being settled once and for all, is an ongoing, organic
argument. It was an argument our Founding Fathers wrestled through,
and thankfully, instead of resolving their conflicts they laid a
framework for the conflicts to be wrestled over. Sure, all politics
is dirty and some politicians are even dirtier. But I wouldn't trade
our system for any other in the world.