Jane Dow's Definition of the Purpose of Government
I emailed Jane Dow a question that essentially asked, "In your opinion, what is the purpose (or objective) of government?" This is the response she sent back:
RESPONSE:
Tim,
This is one of those questions that one could write a book on. However, I will just give you my general philosophy and try to make it brief.
The purpose of government is to provide its citizens with services they can't provide for themselves individually. This would include services such as but not limited to: public transportation, law and order, fire protection, recreation, roads, drainage, schools, land management and preservation (green space), and public policy that protects the citizens.
Please let me know if you have additional questions.
Thanks,
Jane
After reading her response, I decided to email her back my own answer to the question and remark on a few items in her response.
Jane,
Thanks for the response! You could indeed write a book on my question. But I think a short answer is a better answer for that question. My response back is longer than I would have liked, but I hope you bear with me.
I think perhaps the best definition of the objective of government is given in Article I, Section 35 of the Alabama Constitution. It says, "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."
Another question might be, "What is government?" The answer to this is, "Government is force." Everything government does it does through coercion. To see that this is true, pick any government law, regulation, or ordinance and imagine what would happen if you continually refuse to obey. Eventually you might be fined. If you refused to pay the fine, at some point men with guns will show up to make you comply or take you to jail. To me, then, it makes sense to severely limit what government can do.
I would like to respond to each point of your definition:
1: "... to provide its citizens with services they can't provide for themselves individually." This is a broad statement that I agree with in general. However, I think there are very few things which people cannot provide for themselves, or that the free market won't provide if there is really a need.
2: "public transportation". If this is public transportation subsidized by the taxpayer, then it's just another form of welfare which I am opposed to. If it's paid for by the users, then it can be handled by the free market. There is no need to involve the government.
3: "law and order". A police force is something government probably must provide. Private security should be encouraged when possible. Also, personal security in the form of private ownership of firearms should be encouraged and certainly not infringed upon.
4: "fire protection". I really think fire protection should be funded by *voluntary* fees. If you don't want fire protection, you don't pay. If your property catches on fire and you haven't paid for the service, it simply burns up. This is sort of a "user pays" approach.
5: "recreation". The government should not be involved in this. Using government coercion to extract money from people in order to build recreational facilities is wrong. If people want recreational facilities, they should join together and build them voluntarily. Your work with the Kid's Kingdom shows that this can be done. (At least I *hope* it was all done with voluntary contributions, not tax money extorted from the citizens. Your web page seems to indicate it was all voluntary. If so, I thank you and the other fine folks who worked on it!)
6: "roads, drainage". I don't have a problem with this. Road construction and maintenance should be funded with money collected from vehicle and gas taxes. That way, the people who use cars the most pay the most for the service of roads, which is fair. (I've heard of ways the private sector could provide roads, but haven't seen anything that appears workable.)
7: "schools". I think government should get out of education entirely. Before government started playing a role in education this country's educational system ranked near the top in the world. Now it ranks way down on the list. (Sorry, I don't have the statistics at hand right now.) Privatizing schools and allowing parents complete choice in which school to send their children would go a long way in reversing the "dumbing down" we've seen the last few decades. It would also end the arguments over school prayer, sex education, etc. One would send their children to a school that promoted their values. Since the privatization of *all* schools isn't likely to happen anytime soon, I at least want control of schools to be as "local" as possible. City control should be preferred over county or state control. The federal government should *not* be involved in education and has no Constitutional authority to be as involved as it is today.
8: "land management and preservation (green spaces)". Government has no business being involved in this. It infringes on private property rights. Please see my paragraph on "private property" below.
9: "public policy that protects the citizens". This is another broad statement. Too many laws are on the books which are for "public safety". The government now even thinks it should protect the citizens from themselves (for example, the mandatory use of seat belts.) The government should only protect citizens from attacks on their selves, their property, or their freedom. Also, there should be no "victimless crimes." How can there be a crime without a victim? I don't buy into the argument that "society" is the victim.
Here are a few other thoughts I have:
TRASH COLLECTION (See note*): As an example of government force, I'll use the "trash fee" that appears on my water bill each month. I've lived in Madison ten years and have used the trash pickup service perhaps five times. Yet I'm forced to pay this fee every month simply because I purchase water and sewer service from the city. I can't "opt out." It would be cheaper for me to simply take the few items of trash to the landfill myself and pay whatever they charge, but I'm not given that choice.
PRIVATE PROPERTY: Governments at all levels have basically done away with private property rights. If I don't pay the taxes on my home, the government will take it away. (Madison's share of that tax is used to fund the public schools, the services of which I do not use and never will.) Madison dictates how tall my grass can be and even has a taxpayer funded "code enforcer" looking for violators. As I understand it, Madison is either considering or has already passed an ordinance that will require a "permit" before cutting down trees which are over eighty years old. If I want to do virtually anything to my home, I have to get a "permit" and allow an "inspector" to sign off that I've followed all the "building codes". So I ask, who really owns my property?
PETS: I now have to buy an annual "license" and pay a tax for the privilege of having cats. If my cats are found without the license, the city will steal them. In several publicized cases, the city has mistakenly killed animals which have been seized before their owners could claim them. The city offers me nothing in return for having to buy this "license."
If you haven't guessed by now, I basically have libertarian views. If you would like more insight into these views I would suggest you read "Why Government Doesn't Work" by Harry Browne, who happens to be this year's Libertarian candidate for President.
I realize the office of Mayor of Madison may not have power to implement (or un-implement) what I have described. It would require a city council with similar views, and an electorate that wasn't looking to use government force to make their neighbors bend to their will. This probably isn't going to happen anytime soon. However, I will always vote for the candidate for any office which will if not reduce the amount of government, at least slow government's "progress".
Mayor Yancura has basically indicated his views on the role of government by his actions in office. Needless to say, I will not be voting for him. I would like to pose my question to Jan Wells, though. I've heard Cecil Moses has thrown his hat into the ring, but everything I know about him tells me he probably doesn't share my views.
Good luck in your campaign, and remember, I will support whoever can guarantee me the most freedom.
Thank you again for your time.
Tim
I have not (yet) received any reply to this latest email.