Such a simple question but one which
is loaded with ifs and buts. Especially as it has now been blurred into issues
of social responsibility - i.e. it is wrong to let the poor people
suffer - with all the implicit meanings of that word. But the real trouble
today is the whole government thing is so vast and complex we have no idea what
is really happening. So I will assume that instead of being a vast complex
country we were but a small isolated town: then what would be job of the town
leaders.
The first and foremost thought would
be security - the town needs to be a safe place to live and work and free from
outside interference. So to that end the town needs a police force to keep
control in the town and the same or another force to keep the town secure. As a
citizen a reasonable fee for those services would be happily paid - of course
if there is no outside threat and little trouble in the town citizens may cut
back on their protection forces and regret it if suddenly a band of nasties
appear. But that at least could be debated and discussed.
However what else would the citizens
think it is fair to pay for? Presumable if there was a river a bridge would be
needed, rubbish would need to removed (or at least some control over it) and
what about planning? And then there are sewers and drains. And as the town got
more sophisticated who supplies the electric and the telephone service - or
maybe more importantly who pays up front for expensive services? And is the jobs for government to see such services exist or to provide them? If nobody has the
money then the money may need to be borrowed, and that brings me neatly to
where do people keep their money, and how do they pay large amounts, who
provides a loan when somebody wants to buy a house, or start a business? Then
should not the town make certain the keeper of the money neither recklessly
invests the money, nor simple takes it and runs.
And when it gets to regulations;
market standards (weights and measures) were an early arrival in medieval towns
so people understood what they were buying and it was good for the town for the
market to be known to be honest. And it would be a real mess if every house had
different types of electric plug, or people could park when they like, where
they like.
So the idea the government should
keep out of everything is impractical but the big debate is what exactly should
it be involved in? In the US health care is the current big one, and as the
cost of health care spirals upwards, because people live longer and treatments
get more and more sophisticated, the kind of no limit system in place in Europe
is looking less and less sustainable on one side whilst any attempt to rein in
on services will never be acceptable to voters.
But what about all the social
welfare costs from unemployment pay to social housing. I am sure Beveridge is
spinning in his grave when he looks at the welfare culture he has inadvertently
created in the UK. In mediaeval towns such matters were left to charity;
normally in the form of the church.
Pensions should be an easy one if
everybody is encouraged - coerced - to make pensions contributions throughout
their working life and those contributions are used to build a pensions pot -
unfortunately that has not happened so now the state is lumbered with pension
commitments which it has effectively been paid for but has made no provision
for - crass bad management in other words.
Move on to the arts and culture,
what about heritage protection - should the government really be protecting
historical monuments?
There is talk about some kind of cap
on government expenditure as say a percentage of GDP - and such an idea appears
to be eminently sensible given the basic failure of the Soviet Union was
because it went bust as expenditure was outstripping income (don't mention
Greece!). Such a cap would certainly concentrate government's minds on what
they can and cannot spend money on. But that could back fire horrible as
different colour administration may have different priorities thus switching
resources at a whim - almost certainly creating uncertainty and unnecessary
costs.
In the Constitution, the second book
of the Aquitaine Trilogy,this issue is addressed and the solution proposed -
and enshrined in the constitution - was to prioritise government expenditure.
This would mean that the government has to fully fund the most important items
and if it ran out of money the lower items would simply not be funded.
I say this because clearly what we
need today is a debate about exactly what the government should and should not
fund. And maybe the best place to start such a debate is by what priority you
consign to each area of government expenditure. And it would indeed be
interesting to get voters opinions on say the arts against social housing, or
education against health - in Aquitaine it was education first.
