Role of Government

Okay, so here's some thoughts on the role of government.

The purpose of government is twofold. First, government is about ensuring equity among the population it serves. This takes many forms, including the judiciary, the legislature, the regulators, the police services. The second purpose is about distributing common wealth for the common good. This includes the executive branch and public service, including things like infrastructure (physical and systemic). In both cases, the role of government is to improve the quality of life for the whole of the population. To do its work, the government requires money, which must somehow be drawn from the population. The challenge then becomes how to improve the quality of life for the population to the maximum amount. This implies wise use of resources, since each dollar earned by the population may either be spent by the person who earned it, or by the government on that persons behalf. In either case, the quality of life for that person should be improved. Which will improve the life of the total population more, having each individual spend the dollar on himself or herself, or pooling that money together and spending the dollar on some project or service that will benefit all? This question must be answered case by case. Since it is impossible to predict what one person would do with his dollar, it becomes difficult do determine whether or not a government expenditure is justified. Certainly, some basic level of policing, infrastructure, legal system, etc. is justified, since the stability these provide are necessary for individuals to be able to earn a living successfully. The question which politicians and statesmen have argued for a long time is where the line should be drawn between what is justified and what is not. Those that lean to the right would prefer that as much money as possible remain in the hands of the individual. Those that lean to the left would suggest that we pool our resources for the common good. We have seen problems when either of these ideas are taken to the extreme. In the first case, we have capitalist anarchy, where government does not regulate sufficiently to prevent those with money and power from taking advantage of those who do not, and there becomes drastic differences between those with wealth and those without. Those without wealth do not have the means to produce more wealth, even if they have the skill. On the other hand, in Stalinist regimes, we have seen how the central control for the good of all has also removed the motivation from those with skills that could produce wealth, so that in the end they do not produce wealth because they do not get to control the enjoyment of it. In the end such systems have failed eventually, and where they survive, there is still generally less wealth in the society.