Skip to main content

A Thought on Government...

... that I'm not sure is Libertarian or devoted to any other ideology.

But it interested me, because I was thinking about the limited number of types of things that government can do--any government.

It seems to me that, domestically, pretty much all government acts fall into one of three categories (in no particular order):

Taxation--and the enforcement thereof.

Regulation--and the enforcement thereof.

Services--and the provision thereof.

Regulation as I am using it here refers not just to regulation in the sense of, say, sanitary rules for restaurants or inspection standards for pissed-off cows, but to laws that in any sense regulate human behavior (laws against murder, embezzlement, etc.) You could arguably separate laws and regulations, but I think that functionally there is a lot to be said for considering them together.

Services, here, is also considered to include redistributive movement of wealth (i.e., wealth transferred to States or wealth transferred to individuals in the form of Food Stamps, etc.)

I'm curious to see if anybody can come up with a major category of government act that does not fall into one of these categories.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I'd suggest broadening the category of "taxation" to include non-financial items. (Call it "tribute," perhaps.) Consider a draft, for example. Service suggests something that the government is offering you (and which hypothetically you could turn down). Regulation suggests that the government is forcing you not to do something. Taxation seems more generally to get at the idea that the government is forcibly taking something away from you, and so seems the most logical place to put it.

Although, if we're going to accept the idea that service is a voluntary category, it would need to be split into two to handle distinctions between, say, things you can voluntarily apply for like food stamps and things that you can't turn down like bombing villages overseas. In fact, war seems to be a common denominator in many of the above, so it might be worthwhile to add it as a separate category: regulation being the use of force against people the government considers to be under its jurisdiction, and war the use of force against those that it does not so consider.

That said, it'd be quite a stretch to fit attrocities like the Holocaust into any of those categories.

Also, there's going to be some overlap: is government-mandated education a service being provided or a regulation being enforced?
Miko
Several good points: one of the reasons I excluded everything not domestic for the initial question.

I think "services" would be reasonably divided into "voluntary" and "required" as you suggest without doing harm to the concept.

I tend to view regulation pretty broadly: both meat inspections and prison systems regulate people's behavior.

You're right about potential overlap.

What I'm playing with here is the idea of developing least-common denominators for all governments....

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...