Definitions of "good governance" : part one
First of all, let's get the definitions out of the way;
Government: the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.
Governance: a method or system of government or management
Direction: management; control; guidance; supervision
Control: to exercise restraint or direction over
Thus: Government is that function of society which manages, guides, supervises, and restrains the citizens of said society. That's from the dictionary -- I didn't come up with it.
Contrast this to Liberty. There are two common definitions:
The first: freedom from arbitrary or despotic government
The second: freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.
That's the definition. Everything that follows is mostly my personal opinion of how a strong government can be a good government.
The primary clash of government has always been twofold: the role of government and the direction. Both of these are based on the competing ideas of necessitarian thinking or libertarian thinking. The former holds the belief that events are inevitiably caused by preceding causes, that control of causes results in control of events, that more control is good and a lack of control of the factors that become causes results in a lack of any control at all. Libertarian (as a philosophy) believes in the doctrine of free will, in which a release from control means that all things are possible, that not all events must follow predetermined courses, and that a lack of control is good and that too much control leads to situations where people are more the puppets of those in control than in charge of their own lives.
For much of human history, control was topographical, centralized, and concentric in execution and grasp. Eventually, the ideal of "limited freedom" came about, where one class of society was given relative freedom of action to guide, profit from, control, and dominate the majority of society. This class of society was originally hereditary in action and became nobility.
The American Revolution and French Revolution introduced a new paradigm into the equasion, that of representative democracy, where the people were guaranteed a level of freedom unheard of before that time, and where that level of freedom was not to be imposed upon by the government. The government was directed by a class of people as before, but the class of people were popularly selected by the masses. They had no power other than that given to them by the people, and the power of the central government was strictly limited, with some rights given to the people, others to the states, others to the legislature, the judiciary, etc.
As a system it was strikingly original and worked very well. For the times, it was perfectly adapted. As society has evolved and grown, however, increasingly the government has stepped beyond the original stated grounds.
A statist is a believer in centralized government control. That does not always equate to "big government", but it does equate to "strong government". Statists believe that the role of government is in guidance and control of society as a whole, in regulating balances, controlling the economy and trade, and protecting the rights of the governed.
"Good goverment" to a statist, therefore, consists of the following, all of which flow from the above.
First, government must be clearly defined in it's roles. A strong goverment is totally different than a despotic one. A despotic government acts to the determent of the people. A strong government merely has a great deal of potential power. Strong governments can become despotic, but a good government that has clearly defined roles hopefully will not. In any case, the answer of "limited, weak government" does not prevent despotic governments from forming, nor can weak governments control other forms of tyranny such as monopolies or foreign occupation or globalism. A good, strong central government has it's roles set out in the Constitution, and does not exceed them.
Key point: strong government is strong within the limits set by it's charter (the Constitution), not by eroding them. A government that erodes such limits is despotic.
Second, good government acts in the interests of the people as a whole. That does not equal "from each according to ability to each according to need". That is basically socialism, which has an entire different framework. A strong government seeks to ensure it's actions are for the good of society as a whole, which may involve transfers of wealth from rich to poor -- but these should be done in a manner to enable the poor to move off of such assistance, not to provide a permanent transfer. Additionally, a strong government would utilize flat sales taxes and maintain a balanced budget at all times. Money collected not spent would be distributed to the poor first, then the middle class, then the rich. A tax system based on transferall from rich to poor and income taxes requires more infrastructure than it's worth.
The government should expend it's money in stages, based on how things can be provided. Government should spent first on national defense, infrastructure, and education. Education spending should be controlled at the federal level and doled out directly to school districts from the federal level. Lotteries can be enacted to enrich this, as well as taxes on conventional gambling. Education spending should be split equally between public schools and open funding. Parents who wish to private school their children or home school them will receive funds (or in the case of home schooling, supplies). However, ALL students -- home, private, public -- will take federally mandated and controlled tests to track progress. Private schools that fail standards will have funding cut and parents must spend their own dollars to send students there. Public schools that fail standards will have federal observers and private enterprise figures work together to improve the target or be shut down. Home schooled students who cannot pass the federal tests will not be awarded education credits or degrees.
Other spending, such as on the sciences and the arts, should be decided on a percentage basis by the public at large. A simple ballot of slates (10% on art and science and 25% to environment or 15% to art and science and 10% to environment) can ensure that the slices of money spent are in the direction the public wants, while allowing the government complete control over what the dollars go to in that arena.
Key point: strong government does not equal bureaucracy. money wasting, or income taxes.
Third, good government must have the power to act. The federal government should have the ability to act with complete and utter power -- for a very limited amount of time. If that means setting aside free speech rights or rights to own guns, they should have that power. But every single instance must be reviewed by a panel of random citizens, much like a grand jury, before it's authorized and again when it's asked to be extended.
If the government is convinced a terrorist is in the population of a city and has DNA samples, it should be able to get approval from 12 members ofthat city to DNA swab everyone in the city. If it can't, then it has to act within the law and the limits, but if the people feel the limits can be bent, they should be. National security concerns are not a factor. If there is classified information involved, then conceal the sources -- but share the data. If the data is so sensative it can't be revealed, then the violation simply cannot be allowed. Period.
However, such bending cannot be made permanent, ever. There can be no PATRIOT acts passed in a good government. Good goverment only uses and seeks such power for very short durations, any government as strong as what I propose must have strict limits or it becomes despotic instantly.
Key point: governmental limits must be absolute except when the people agree to bend them temporarily.
A strong goverment does not need to restrict gun ownership. It's not scared of free speech. A strong government should not have unbalanced budgets, and it should reflect the will of the people and be able to ACT on it. THe problem with the government today is that it's weak, and fragmented, balkanized and corrupted. There's no way for the government to do what the people want because of the way it's built.
That being said, some things (strong control of the economy and regulation on businesss, strong control of patents and copyright, right of eminent domain, etc) probably leave a sour taste in some people's mouth. People who see liberty as paramount and think all control is bad will never like or agree with anything above, because they are of the opinion that government cannot solve any problems and can only creat more messes.
My problem with that thinking is that it's only true if you keep doing things the same way as you always have. A strong government with the proper controls would be more responsive, more representative, and yet have more ability to keep society going in the proper direction that a weak, corrupted mess where everyone has the freedom to do everything as long as they pay their taxes.
definition source: Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. [link edited for length] (accessed: February 22, 2008).
©2008 Logical Premise, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Friday, February 22, 2008
Last modified: Friday, February 22, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Logical Premise only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Logical Premise is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Logical Premise of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Logical Premise |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: MikeFoster
Date: 2008-02-22 16:56:30
I have to admit that coming in contact with you, Logical Premise, has been a good thing for me. It has been very helpful to hear your perspective and I have learned some things because of it. Thanks.
I think you did a great job on this article. Thumbs up :-)
Posted By: DX10
Date: 2008-02-22 21:01:59
Probably the best contemporary illustration of good government was when Spock awakened to discover that his brain was controlling all of the ships systems.
I.e., a benevolent dictator. But you won't find that in this world.
Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: 2008-02-22 21:37:25
A benevolent dictator with a clique of ultra-efficent, selfless adminstrators -- and 6 citizens with pistols ready to execute the dictator should he get out of hand.
Posted By: Adam Rink
Date: 2008-03-08 17:51:21
Good explanation, it really helped me. I am a libertarian so I don't agree with all your views, but you do have some great points. Balanced bugdet, no patriot act and ability to break up monopolistic activities is something I agree on with you.
A follow up would be good on how you would implement controls. I believe in limited government but obviously we started with that and there weren't enough controls to keep it that way. The controls are essential because even your government could just as easily turn into the government of today.