Governing by Principle
Forest Thigpen of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy has just put out a great booklet for those looking to sound principles to guide public policy. They are not without bias, of course, for Thigpen's organization is concerned with "limited government, free markets, strong traditional families."
Thigpen challenges those who have the booklets to ask candidates for office this year to make clear their stand on these items (fully explained in the booklet, of course with quotes from Founding Fathers). The booklet should be used by voters, in government, naturally, but also by those in schools at all levels to teach (or argue with) basic principles of how to make law. Get it at www.mspolicy.org or call (888-677-6542) for your free or additional copies. Great stuff.
The principles:
Questions that should be asked lawmakers before they act on an idea:
Thigpen challenges those who have the booklets to ask candidates for office this year to make clear their stand on these items (fully explained in the booklet, of course with quotes from Founding Fathers). The booklet should be used by voters, in government, naturally, but also by those in schools at all levels to teach (or argue with) basic principles of how to make law. Get it at www.mspolicy.org or call (888-677-6542) for your free or additional copies. Great stuff.
The principles:
- Government exists to protect rights, not to create them.
- The legitimate power of government begins and ends with the people, while its authority comes from the Creator.
- Just because a problem exists doesn't mean government should try to solve it.
- Long-term and cumulative consequences should be considered more carefully than short-term benefits.
- Government has nothing to give anyone except what it first takes from someone else.
- Individuals are ultimately responsible for governing themselves and for the consequences of their decisions.
- Free enterprise, not government, is the engine of personal economic prosperity.
- The free market should not be distorted by government-designed dictates or advantages.
- Government has a respoonsibility to protect the foundational institution of society: the marriage-based, two-parent family.
- Parents, not government, are responsible for the education and upbringing of their children.
Questions that should be asked lawmakers before they act on an idea:
- Does government has the legitimate authority to do it? If so, what is the proper level of government to do it?
- Does it protect inalienable rights, or does it create new rights (or extend rights that were previously created by government? Does it infringe on anyone else's inalienable rights?
- Will it lead to more freedom, or less? Will it restore freedom that has been lost due to previous government action?
- Will it result in people taking more responsibility for themselves, or less?
- Will it foster or reinforce a "government is our savior" mentality, or will it lessen it?
- Will it protect the free exchange of goods and services among willing participants, or will it burden that process with taxes or regulations?
- Will it help some people but create long-term circumstances that actually harm others?
- Even if it is a good idea, will it have the cumulative effect of being the "straw that broke the camel's back" after being added to existing laws?
- And many more...
Labels: Government
posted by Matt Friedeman at
5:07 PM
2 Comments:
In a perfect world, we would not "need" the government. But in reality, common people do need the government to protect them from unbridled greed. If government did not exist to try to contain human's natural lust for power and money, companies like Enron would be the norm. The events described in "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair would be an example of what the food industry could be like. Conservatism is funny in that it really doesnt want small government, but small government for everyone but them.
A very intelligent man wrote this, but I would have to disagree with a lot of the points. 1. Government most definately exists to create AND protect rights. A quick look at some of the rights we have shows us that alot of them are not moral rights that would be from God. If we truly felt that we were endowed by our Creator(the Creator) with certain rights, one would not have to be a U.S. citizen to aquire those rights, everyone would already have them. 2 and 3. I agree. 4. We should have applied that to Iraq. 5. Thats the nature of government, we do forget that, but that is how it always has been. 8. Both parties would be out of business if this were true. Right or wrong, the government helps a lot of small businesses and even gives breaks to oil companies in periods of historic profits. 9. I can see how this would be a benefit to our nation, but I think that is a church responsibility not government. 10. Yes and no. Its both parents and government and the sooner we realize that the better. If you mean ultimate responsibility, sure its the parents. But with public education, it is definately a shared responsibility
When I hear people rail on the government, two things come to mind. One is that they willfully ignore history or are not aware of it. And that they also ignore that government usually intervenes when there is misconduct or complete failure.
We have not always had welfare and public assistance programs. Do you ever hear people talk about now compared to before? There was a time in our country's history that the poverty level was 20-22 percent, almost one fourth. That could not be blamed on public assistance, it did not exist. And it would have been the perfect time for all of the non-governmental entities to step up and address that. They did not. Ask a conservative to show you the stat that says welfare increases divorce or any of the other assertions they make. Thats a belief they have, they dont know if that is the case or not. Ask them how many people are on welfare, they dont know. I bet its a lot fewer than they actually think. Doesn't it seem for them to have formed such deep beliefs they should know those basic facts? Whites and blacks are on welfare. More whites than blacks are on welfare, so how does the mere existence of welfare explain the higher number of unwed births among blacks? Why is that the correlation? Welfare can not explain those same phenomenon in countries where it does not exist.
Sometimes I think people have an irrational perception of the government. I say irrational because it comes up whenever there needs to have a "Boogie Man". Does anyone seriously believe that if there were no public schools tomorrow, that all of the problems public schools deal with will vanish? That is using a failing situation to further another point that would have to address the same issues with fewer capabilities.
The interesting thing is that I am not a "big government" guy. I would cut out all of the waste if I could. But if we are going to be a nation of Christians, that should reflect in the government. I think the fruit should be more representative of it being run by Christians.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home