The Role of Government

It seems to me that a great deal of the political flack that is flying has been orbiting a center of assumptions regarding the nature of government, assumptions that are not themselves articulated or debated.

Specifically, there seems to be split amongst those running for government office as to whether or not government is, in fact, a good thing. It is, in a certain light, darkly humorous to contemplate those running for government office who are against, well, government. Although perhaps those against government who are running for office are attempting to undermine the system from within.

Sarcasm aside, there does seem to be an underlying philosophical difference between conservatives and liberals as to when and whether government should be involved in individuals lives. Some of these beliefs, even within a political perspective, are quite contradictory (get your hands off my gun, but put your hands right into a woman's uterus, and vice versa). Overall, the contradictions within and between perspectives illustrate, to me, a serious confusion in our country on what the role of government is, and ought to be. 

There are those who argue largely for an absent government, one that protects our national borders, defines our rights, polices the enforcement of those, and then goes back to the plow. 

This is not how we live today. Americans take the government to task for failures of the road system, of providing schooling, drug safety information, prescription coverage, and naming the French Fries. We demand a great deal of the government without being willing to articulate clearly our expectations of the government's rights towards us, or our responsibilities towards them.

Nor do we articulate clearly our priorities. Let's say Anna gets raped. The DNA sequencing of her rape kit costs $1,500. Paying the D.A., the judge, and the stenographer for their time to prosecute her case, and the public defender is another $5,000. The cost of locking up her attacker for the next fifteen years is $150,000. I do not, under any circumstances, think Anna should have to pay for being a victim. However, someone has to pay for these expense. It is generally socially shared, by the government's taxation. 

Let's say Thomas, turned 18, just graduated from high school, and looking for a job as a house painter gets hit by a drunk driver. He does not have insurance. We cannot, in good conscience, leave him to die rather than treat him. His medical bills are $27,563. He cannot pay this.  The government picks up the tab, and spreads it around through taxation. 

Yet, at a certain point, if these individuals cannot afford these expenses, Thomas and Anna cannot pay their own way, there is a huge problem when the balance tips and we are all Thomas and Anna. And we cannot pay for what we expect. There is no clear guidance on where to cut back. 

This is especially problematic with death. A heart attack, cancer treatment; these cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yet we cannot say 'No, die.' But we cannot pay the bills, either, and the payment is coming due. What are we to do? What can we expect of our lives and governments? It is clear, now, that house prices do not always go up. The stock market does not always rise. These are not things you can expect. What, though, is our social contract in this day and age? What can we expect, and expect to give in return? Does the social contract need rewriting? For I started this: The Role of Government. But Government is made up of citizens, Americans. And we need to speak much more of: The Role of Citizens.