Inherent
in modern organization is the propensity to self-propagate and expand
to satisfy a collection of internal interests. The need for the
organization becomes an abstraction and the organization becomes the
focus. The pursuit of profit in an organisation rationalises
behaviour to outcome, the creation of laser focus on outcome is the
key to the success of any organization. In the absence of focus on
purposeful outcome, the organization expands to evermore perceived
requirements of the people within it to satisfy their ambitions. The
combination of people’s internal ambitions and expanding sources of
revenue creates a reality that is the core of the challenge of
government and the inclination for it to expand beyond a useful
scale; or worse, collapse under the weight of it's Byzantine maze of
laws and regulations.
There
is almost universal consensus on the need for government and zero
consensus on the extent of government. Regardless of the amount of
government, there are two primary views to governance; one view sees
government as a tool to control the populous and one sees government
as a means to liberty by the non - intrusive facilitation of human
exchange. When government acts to provide an environment where people
are actuated by their own creativity in response to their desires,
within a given environment, an infinite number of possibilities come
to the fore and are pursued – a thousand flowers bloom. When
government seeks to plan the actions of people, it moves the creative
process from billions to a few. This assertion is born out with a
single trip through a western shopping environment; thousands of
people daily are seeking to provide me with anything I can imagine
and many I could never have imagined. Stand this in contrast with a
shopping circumstance in Soviet era Russia, a totalitarian centrally
planned government – grey buildings, shortages and very little
selection.
Looking
to government to solve our problems is a temping thing. When we cast
our eyes to government to solve our problems we need to look back, as
Winston Churchill said “the further back you look the further ahead
you see”, so look back over history and almost every civilisation
imploded under its own bureaucratic weight. Government actions, while
necessary must be delivered efficiently and in a manner that is
sensitive to the liberties of the people receiving them. Too often,
government and its appointed representatives feel that when a person
falls into state care in some capacity, that they in some way have
the right to impose the state on the personal choices of the
individual. It is for this reason that government should remain in
the role of arbiter and facilitator, and refrain from being the
provider.
Regardless
of intent however, as government exceeds a given threshold it begins
to exercise greater and greater influence over our lives. This is the
paradox of the two freedoms, government by extending services to the
populous to facilitate access to a liberated circumstance for its
citizenry becomes increasingly coercive. The critical element in the
contemplation of government action is to ensure that government
action is directed toward facilitation of human actions and away for
the provision of services. This paradigm is critical, because the
provision of services moves us toward a totalitarian circumstance,
where government is seen as a source of entitled sustenance. This
insidious progression toward totalitarianism moves us away from an
enterprising group of people paying taxes and takes us toward a
centrally planned society. This circumstance takes decision making
away from people and gives it to government, and nearly always with a
loss of freedom and always with a loss of efficiency. The closer
management is to the point of actuation the better executed action
is. To substantiate this point, where would you expect to find
greater efficiency; on the family farm in Canada or the government
farm in Russia – history has judged the Canada family farm very
favourably.
Canadian
medicare is a source of national pride. There is a wide debate on the
nature and scope the system should take on. It’s relative benefit
to other jurisdiction’s solutions in many cases is great, so my
introduction of the system is to provide the system as a muse, rather
than as a subject of critique. In Canada when I go to buy food; the
types, natures and modes of delivery are abundant – choice abounds.
When I go to seek medical help in Canada, I have one choice – only
the government provided service. Once the again, the relative merit
is mute, the issue is that, in the government provision of the
service my choice is limited compared to garnering other essentials
like food, – this is an intrusion on my choice. What is more
concerning though is how the provision of free medical helps to take
the thinking of policy makers further and further into our private
life, on the justification that a given set of actions cost the
“system” money. A body weight that garners a certain body mass
index generates a high risk for ill health, is this justification
then for government to regulate my diet or to enforce exercise? In
just one generation past, if someone suggested that government might
one day legislate the consumption of food and exercise, the prospect
would have been considered completely implausible. Yet now there is
justification and contemplation of such policies. It is in this way
that government provision of services has government insidiously
progressing more deeply into our private lives.
As
government does more, people expect more, which generates an increase
in velocity of the expansion of government; this phenomenon generates
an exponential growth in government. As government grows it draws
more people and resources to its ambit and away for the private
sector, away from the private sector which is the source of the
resources that government is dependant on. You might say it begins to
parasitize itself, lake a snake eating its own tale, the circumstance
is unsustainable. It is important to limit government; because
government’s effective existence depends on it. There is a
harmonic between government and the economy, if government grows too
quickly it stifles the economy by increasing the tax burden, first
the economy must expand and then the government can increase its
contribution.
The
gestalt which has as its parts, government, market economy and self
interest is a most powerful generator of prosperity. Once again, cast
an eye over human progress and you will be unable to find as
widespread prosperity at any point in human history; we in Canada and
most of the Western World are living better now than any other humans
in history – ever – and that wealth is generalised. Can it be
better? absolutely. Has ever been better? never. There are many who
are inclined to point out that wealth is unevenly distributed; they
are correct, wealth is unevenly distributed, but in modern day
western society our “poor” are the rich of yester year. More
importantly, with government as a facilitator people can look forward
to a piece of an ever expanding pie. To maintain this generalised
assent we must manage this trifecta carefully and the most critical
element is the axis between governments’ mass and its two vital
counterparts, the market economy and self interest.
KISS
provides a useful acronym to help remember the appropriate size of
government to its counterparts - keep it small stupid or at least
keep it relatively small. While this comment is intended to be tongue
in cheek, the premise is accurate. There is a large body of work that
justifies constraining the size of government on an economic basis.
Of greater concern is the intrusion of government on personal
sovereignty. There is a rubicon between the mass of government and
the mass private society that when grossed generates the beginning of
the suppression of constructive free human action.
The
political process is driven by many interested parties, largely all
wanting government to do something. As, thankfully, the democratic
process responds to people and as a result government tends to do
more things, as aforementioned, creating continued inertia toward
expansion relative is other two counter parts – the market economy
and self interest. As it is the political process which is
effectively contributing to government’s harm, either by the
retarding of growth, or the dissuasion of new enterprise do to
excessive taxes, or the repelling of new citizens due to high
relative tax rates, or the excessive control of its citizens; there
needs to be an apolitical means of regulating government expansion.
The Bank of Canada (BOC) is an apolitical institution that is
generally accepted as effective. The BOC is effective precisely
because it has a narrow mandate to manage the money supply relative
to inflation and employment. A Central Finance department functioning
at arms length to the government, with the single simple mandate of
constraining or increasing the flow of tax revenues to parliament
depending on whether government has surpassed or receded a critical
size relative to the economy at large, would provide the same
effective functionality as the Bank of Canada. Debate around the
critical size at its inception would undoubtedly be vigorous, but as
a concept to manage excesses of government this entity would have
merit – leaving the decisions on how to spend revenues where it
belongs, in the hands of the people, but regulating the amount based
on a rationale other than a political imperative to respond to more
requests for money.
To
the extent government action seeks to liberate human resources, then
government action will ultimately result in self fulfilling progress.
To the extent government retards actuation of human resource it will
curtail its own progress. The challenge is recognising the harmonics
at play and bringing resolution to when government size will firstly
result in the curtailing of public actions and then government
revenue.
"Extremism
in the defence of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that
moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry
Goldwater
No comments:
Post a Comment