photo credit: quarksteilchen
In the midst of a recent comment the author revealed a fundamental assumption that he and I don’t share that clearly explains why we have differing views on government:
Federal mandates are about the only power the government has to prevent a race to the bottom. . . THE only way to get some states to do what needs to be done is to simply mandate it. The race to the bottom has got to end.
I should start by saying that federal mandates truly are the only power that government has to prevent a race to the bottom – also that I don’t think such mandates are sufficient to prevent such a race (in other words government is powerless to stop that race). After exploring the assumptions that serve as the foundation for that statement about a race to the bottom I quickly concluded that I could not accept that view of the world for myself.
The view that government must use federal mandates to prevent a race to the bottom seems to be built on the belief of Thomas Hobbes that people are basically selfish and evil. People who act as Hobbes expects will naturally engage in a race to the bottom on any issue. It is possible to believe that states will engage in a race to the bottom while still thinking the people are not basically selfish but to hold that combination of beliefs requires a belief that politics is basically corrupt and that it is mainly those who would engage in a race to the bottom who hold public office.
[quote]The really damning aspect of that view of government is how it is self contradictory. It provides a perfect catch-22 because if all people are basically selfish then a government run by men cannot be trusted to prevent a race to the bottom. Even if it is only the selfish who are in power how is it possible to believe that selfish people are controlling the state governments and would send them in a race to the bottom and yet believe that by some force of magic the federal government is not also filled with this same type of selfish, short-sighted individual? I don’t understand how a person can believe that individuals are constantly working against the good of society while arguing that individuals in government are somehow made with a higher level of morality giving them a better sense for the good of society. Even harder to comprehend is the suggestion that there is some fundamental difference between those who hold federal office and those who hold state office – especially where the suggestion is that those holding federal office have a better sense of what is good for the state than those holding state office.
The alternative, as best expressed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is that men are basically good. Basically good is not the same as absolutely good so there is still a need to have government operating in society, making sure that the worst of people are not allowed to freely plunder from the rest of people and providing structure in matters that are not issues of right or wrong, such as establishing weights and measures and defining what side of the street to drive on. Translated into the arena of government this view suggests that anytime government does things beyond what it is meant to do it is much more likely to be impeding a race to the top than it is to be preventing a race to the bottom. Those who believe in the basic goodness of their fellow men should be naturally cautious about inserting government into all facets of life, even if they believe that those holding public office are acting on the best of intentions for the good of society.
Leave a Reply