What Really Is the Job of Government?

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.