The Necessary Evil

In spite of appeals for civility from President Obama, acrimony continues in Washington, with prominent administration and Congressional personalities calling Republicans “terrorists” for refusing to roll over on budgets, the debt ceiling, etc.

The heart of the controversy is a difference in philosophy about the purpose of government.  Most Democrats believe government should do as much as possible; Republicans mostly believe government’s role should be limited and as much as possible should be done by the private sector.  Should the government provide/control your health care (Hillarycare/Obamacare), your retirement (Social Security), your food (15% of Americans are on food stamps) and even your consumer goods (Obama’s takeover of General Motors)?

Democrats would say “yes” to the above questions.  Many Republicans and most Libertarians would say those things would be better done by the private sector.  The latter would go further and say education (public schools) and infrastructure (airports, utilities, prisons, roads) could be done better by private companies than the government.

I’m fond of saying “Government is a Necessary Evil, with the operative word being ‘Evil'”.  I don’t say that to be cute or hyperbolic.  While I know we must have some  government functions to maintain order and protect borders etc. (one thing the current Federal government refuses to do!), government by nature is evil and it should do as little as possible.

What do I mean by “government by nature is evil”?

Consider how government gets its money.  This is crucial, since more and more people see the government as a SOURCE of money for them, whether paid to them directly or to the business they work for through grants, contracts or “corporate welfare”.  The government has one main source of funds: taxes.  How does it collect taxes?  In most cases it takes money from you BEFORE you get your paycheck.  You never see it.  You worked to earn the money, but the government believes it can use the money better than you can, so it just takes it.  That’s evil.  You worked hard for that money, but the government takes it by force.

What do I mean, “by force”?  If you evade (as opposed to “avoid”) paying your taxes, you will be fined and ultimately men with guns will come and take you to prison.  So the government takes your money or they take your freedom.  For that reason all government money is “dirty”.  It’s taken by force and tainted by the threat of violence.  That’s why taxes should be as low as possible and the government should do as little as possible.  I’m not saying there should be no taxes.  I know some is necessary, since the government doesn’t really do anything that people would willingly pay for.

Which brings us to the other side of the argument.  Private business is “clean” in my estimation, because business gets its money from people voluntarily.  When you buy corn flakes for your breakfast, you can choose Kellogg’s, Post Toasties, or a store brand.  The corporations may use advertising and colorful packaging to convince you to buy their brand, but you have choices and there’s no danger that you’ll go to jail if you decide to buy English muffins instead.

The same can be said of charity.  Democrats wail about children and the elderly starving if any cut in government spending is proposed, but there’s a big difference in the checks I happily write to my church or the items I give to Goodwill and the money that’s forcibly taken from me in taxes.  There’s no way I can feel very charitable about the latter.

With the government, even the most benign government, choice (i.e. freedom) is always limited, and the penalties for breaking the rules are always severe.  Hence Obamacare, like Hillarycare before it, includes fines and jail time if you go to a doctor out of network or if your doctor prescribes a treatment the program hasn’t approved for you.  There can be no better argument against government involvement in health care.  How can we see that as anything but evil?