The Role of Government
I remain skeptical about the mass adoption of high-speed rail outside of the Northeast Corridor (PS Megan McArdle is also skeptical), but I want to go on record as saying I’m not holding it to nearly as rigorous a cost-benefit screen as others in the blogosphere. As this interesting little report points out, a lot of the stuff we take for granted and laud independent entrepreneurs for today were made possible by massive initial government involvement: think of transportation infrastructure like rail lines or technology innovations like microchips and the Internet.
So if regions want to tax themselves to raise money for transit, and the feds want to ante up early dollars to get things going, that’s fine. My cynicism does not reflect scorn for such public investments as boondoggles, but rather a hunch that low-density places will have to make massive infrastructural enhancements as well as fundamental attitudinal shifts in order to reap the promised environmental and mobility benefits of transit.
Hard-core libertarians want government out of everything; hard-core liberals want government in everything. Barack Obama was right in this regard: it’s not about how big or small government is, but whether it’s being effective in what it’s doing. Easier said than done: we all have our complaints about government being involved where it shouldn’t be, or not involved where it should, or ineffective or downright counter-productive when it tries to do something. But, with apologies to the Voluntaryist movement, government has a role in our lives; the challenge, which all we citizens should fuss about and hold them accountable to, is to figure out where it should be involved and where it shouldn’t, and within the spheres they should be involved, how they should be involved.
Comments
As you're aware, "government" and "the State", are two terms that are used interchangeably in common usage, but which are in fact quite distinct from each other. To say "there will always be a role for government" is like saying "there will always be a role for central nervous systems in intelligent life forms". There's no way you can argue against that. What you can argue about, is what form human government should take: an organic network of organizations formed entirely voluntarily that perform all the functions that our current government does, only better and cheaper, or a machine-like hierarchy of organizations that exist through contributions taken with the real threat of force (just like the mafia does).
It pains me to see most of my friends caught up in the debate of what government should be doing, instead of taking a stand against "the violence inherent in the system" (yes, I'm going to come right out and quote Monty Python).
On the other hand, I've become increasingly aware that my Christian friends are by and large bound by the centuries-old interpretation of Romans 13:1-7. I see you, Lee, partly influenced by that passage (hence your libertarian streak) and also significantly influenced by your public policy studies, which do not tend to be taught by people who don't believe the State is a moral solution to the question of how to organize human society.
If you imagine one guy robbing me at gunpoint outside my front door, and giving me an explanation as to the good cause my money is required for, and then you increase the size of the group organizing the robbing, and the size of the group being robbed, and the complexity of the reasons offered for the robbing, at which point do you turn a moral corner, from "obviously immoral!" to "Um... hm. Maybe not totally immoral, maybe even mostly moral."?
I do promise that I'll blog on Romans 13:1-7 soon, and explain why it doesn't even come close to sanctioning our system of government, but first I need to blog on "discourse discernment", which is my biblical hermeneutical approach.
Thanks for bringing the subject up again. :-)
My question stands-- if a guy points a gun at you at the door of your house, and says "Give me $100 because it will pay for medicine without which my daughter will die within 24 hours," what is your moral judgment of said guy?
If a local, state or national government operates using funds which a mere 10% of the contributors only handed over because they didn't want to go to jail and/or lose all their property, what is your moral judgment of said government? What if it's 40% percent of the contributors? 5%?
I'll give you a hint toward my answer: the fact that I am allowed (maybe forced, some day-- who knows?) to go to a government polling station every once in a while to express a preference between candidates who will oversee the collection of involuntary contributions for the next X years, does not make the practice morally acceptable.
The question of how much power we wish to collect together to synchronize in use and how much we wish to diffuse to individual actors is really challenging. I think Lee has expressed the tension well. Fortunately, there is a whole spectrum between and multiple layers of government within which power can be collected.
My own belief is that the scale of power should be the lowest possible necessary to effectively deal with the particular system. Some systems can be build from the bottom up (emergence), but my hunch is that HSR needs a large-scaled and sustained federal initiative to get started. If there were a national transportation system more amenable to an incremental approach to construction, I would happily support it, but I don't know if there is.
First of all, I'd like to observe that both of you (I just glanced at Daniel's current blog) are extremely interested in practical solutions for challenges facing communities on a large scale, like the metro region level. The three of us have this in common.
But I also feel, based on the comments so far and what I read from Lee in the past, that you both more or less take both the need for, and the justification of, taxing government entities (aka The State) for granted, and prefer to have the rest of the conversation proceed from there. And I am all but certain that you have this position because of traditional readings of "render unto Caesar" and Romans 13:1-7. And you can only accept these traditional readings, if you are coming to the bible with the approach of fitting individual passages into a pre-existing theological framework. I of course realize that anyone who claims to read passages of the bible *without* an organizing framework of some kind, is blowing smoke. I simply am warning you that if you use the biblical framework that is favored by the existing ruling establishment, you will never receive messages from the bible that speak harshly against the existing ruling establishment.
There obviously is more to be said on that point, but this is a blog comment, not a monograph (or at least I'm trying to keep it from being a monograph).
Daniel- you have given a very pat answer to my serious charge that government as we know it is thuggery, and then moved on to more pragmatic concerns about the proper sizing of the thing, and tactics for finding the optimal form of organization of the thing. And most of all, you *want* HSR, so you are interested in how best to *get* HSR. That's all well and good.
But representation in the system of thuggery, does not *justify* the system of thuggery-- on the contrary, you are merely proving the moral complicity in the thuggery, on the part of all who "play the game". Am I saying that all voters are *equally* morally liable for the horrors perpetrated by government? No. But our "constitutional democratic republic" or whatever you want to call it, it one of the best Faustian bargains ever devised, because it spreads its net over everyone involved-- the elected politicians, the appointed and hired bureaucrats, and the "electorate", at whose feet ultimate authority, and ultimate responsibility is winkingly laid.
It is extremely difficult to think about this clearly, because of the thick web of jargon about civics and government that we each acquire over a lifetime. It is difficult to read 1 Samuel 8, and replace "the king" with "the government that I give nominal consent to". But odd as it may seem, there is a spiritual equivalence between that ancient moment, and 1775-1800 in our own land. "Seemed like a good idea at the time!!" You reap what you sow. And humans sow bad government. There is no good form of coercive government. We keep trying different seedstock, thinking "this time we've got it", but we ignore God's heartrending statement about Israel's rejection of him, in 1 Samuel 8.
It pains me (a little) to do this, but I'm going to try to summarize my views about Romans 13 and "render unto Caesar". I will be posting longer and more fleshy pieces about these, on my own blog, but I'm giving you guys a sneak peek. If you can, I strongly strongly urge both of you to read my latest post in spreadword.blogspot.com, about biblical approach. (continued)
And Jesus response to "Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar?": "Caesar has his system, and he's got coins to make it go, with his face printed on them. God has a kingdom too. You figure it out." He did NOT say "Yes, it is right to pay taxes to Caesar" or "No, it is not right to pay taxes to Caesar". If he had said either of these things, he answer would not have been "amazing" or "stunning" or "devastating" to his questioners, who were just playing a high-stakes game of public chess with him. They were sure they had him by the short hairs, because if he answered one way, he'd have directly broken Roman law, and if he answered another way, he'd probably be literally torn to pieces in short order, by the excitable and desperate crowd. But his answer was the same in *content* as his answer to "Who gave you authority to do these outrageous things (i.e. take over the temple)?", if not in form, i.e.: "You are pretending to ask legitimate questions, but your motive is not knowledge. I will turn your questions back on you in a way that shows up your perfidy in front of the crowd, i.e., I will make the question be about *you* and not about *me* or about *God*."
There has long been confusion about the basic moral code (Ten Commandments) and government in practice. But it's really not that difficult. Jesus' kingdom is about voluntary interactions between people (rich, poor, male, female, swordsman, scribe, etc.) whose minds have been freed from the way of violence and abdication of their individual responsibility.
The "world" says that it can be morally right to force someone to give up money "for the greater good", when his only motivation for giving it up is fear of violence against himself. We know that it is morally right to voluntarily give of one's extra wealth, to the needs of other people. The world says that we are a mass of basically mindless individuals, and that we are only good as a collective, which has a "mind" and which is able to act for "the greater good", i.e., a greater good than any miserable sap's wishes for the disposition of the product of his labor.
We misinterpret Jesus' warning that "no one can serve two masters". It is impossible to serve the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man simultaneously. It is impossible to be "of the world" and "not of the world" simultaneously. The evils we witness, the wanton actions of the extremely powerful against everyone else, and the sophistry of the justifications of the powerful for their actions-- they are all part of a single system, which is underpinned by our form of elected government. It will never end, as long as millions of independent actors continue to participate, and "conform their minds to this world".
And yes, I do believe in "thy kingdom come". I do not believe in "oh well, you know... 'this side of glory', and all that". What if eternity is already here? I believe it is, and I believe we Christians must act for the coming of the kingdom. And not by electing Christians into office. God's kingdom is much better than that.
See? This is too long, and I've barely gotten started. :-) (continued)
I tend to be more pragmatic about the role of the state, due to my (I think Augustinian) reading of the genesis narrative. Government is not a redemptive institution, but a matter of God's common grace instituted after the fall - something he as given us to mitigate (not solve) the effects of sin and scarcity and make life on earth a little more enjoyable for a broader number of people (not bring heaven to earth). A medical doctor cannot created an eternal resurrected body, but caring for our temporal bodies is good work nonetheless.
Because of this, I tend to shy away from utopian schemes on either the left (perfect government) or the right (perfect free market). The church is the redemptive institution on earth, and its consummation will not take effect until Jesus returns. I think that requires active waiting.
I agree with you that Romans 13 and Matt. 22 have traditionally been asked to bear more theological weight then they were intended to, but that's not really where I'm building from primarily.
I would caution you against putting to much emphasis on a systemic origin of evil. You wrote:
"The evils we witness, the wanton actions of the extremely powerful against everyone else, and the sophistry of the justifications of the powerful for their actions-- they are all part of a single system, which is underpinned by our form of elected government."
No, the evils of this world are underpinned by sin in the hearts of individuals, which is why I believe anarchy would be more damaging than an imperfect order.
But with your last statement, you are misreading my statement that you were responding to.
I did not say "evil is underpinned by our form of electoral government". I said that the *specific* evil acts we witness all around us, *specifically* perpetrated by people who belong to "a government" (in the USA, I mean), are part of a single system. I meant that when a government employee does something evil, like throwing someone in jail or confiscating their property when all they did was disobey an arbitrary government regulation, that act and its justification, are part of a specific system, which has grown organically out of our "constitutional republic" form of government.
I don't want to see people justify the existence of taxing government by Rom. 13, but I also don't want the divine message of Rom. 13 to be disregarded either, that message being: "There are always people who make the free choice to steal from and kill and assault other people. God has provided that these people shall be restrained by those skilled in the use of deadly force."
That was an idealized vision of government, written by a guy who was really more concerned about the functioning of his new church, and who never made any statements indicating he had much of a "political philosophy" beyond that tersely practical formula. (Although in one of the Corinthian epistles he did indirectly disparage the secular justice system by saying that it should not be used by those in the church for resolving disputes between them.)
So I would caution you, in light of Ephesians 6 (principalities, powers and rulers), against putting too much emphasis on the individual actor as the "origin" of evil.
Christians have debated "be ye in the world, but not of the world", since the very beginning. Interesting to me that one of the few books of the NT (James) that probably had a Jewish author, is the one that contains that specific admonition. Paul said it too, but with a subtly different twist, in Romans 12: "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."
Don't forget, that we live in an age almost 1700 years after the Christian faith was made an essential organ of the Roman imperial state. It is easy to think, now, "Oh, sure, Christians should pipe up and be heard, in our democratic political system. That's how God wants us to be salt and light, today." But I think it is a vile game, with violence at its core, in its very underpinning philosophies. Our modern political system owes virtually nothing to a biblical worldview.
You call my wish for no state, "utopian". You can only say that because you think we will never see the kingdom of God in its fullness "this side of glory". It sounds to me like "roll over and let the government guys manage things, 'until Jesus comes again'". I don't give anyone, not even Paul, let alone Augustine, enjoy the status of "infallible thinker", when it comes to the question of how the sword should be wielded. Their minds were limited by the world they lived in, and Augustine in particular had to reconcile himself and his readers to the fact that Christianity had been co-opted by secular government, after all those years of resisting it.
Daniel, I appreciate your comments and tend to agree with them. Joel, thanks for your thoughts, and please continue to unpack them for me.
Interestingly, I attended a leadership forum last week in which we were asked to state the underlying assumptions that have influenced the Philadelphia region. One which got broad assent was the notion that we tend to think of government as both the problem and the solution.
While I agree that government has a role to play in both causing problems and solving them, I track with what Daniel is saying in that ultimately, as a vehicle for humans, government can do evil because it is created and run by humans; and, similarly, government can do good because it is, at times, a logical structure by which humans can solve problems, and, at times, those humans get both the structure and the execution right. At the same time, I think this is part of what Joel is getting that, that we all presume the validity of this entity, "government," and then project onto it all sorts of things that, if we would but take the time to deconstruct the whole thing, shouldn't necessarily be assigned to government.
But those are just my thoughts. I welcome yours and others.
I have decided to continue this discussion, with a blog post of my own:
http://spreadword.blogspot.com/2009/09/government-gun-is-always-in-room.html
I'd appreciate if you both could take a look at it, and provide your comments, when you have a moment.