Persuade if you can
Coerce only if you must
Should people be compelled to pay for government services they don't want?
Liberals try to figure out how to say yes; conservatives to say no. Liberals like public education, contending that an educated citizenry and workforce benefits all of society, even those who didn't go or send their kids to public schools. So if everyone benefits, everyone should pay. Conservatives contend that education is the responsibility of the individual or the family. These are the principle beneficiaries of education; these are the ones who ought to foot the bill.
But the question soon gets complicated. On defense, the positions are reversed. Conservatives like a big military, which defends the whole country, even liberal pacifists who wish they could opt out. Conservatives don't want to let them.
What's a democracy to do?
A few things. First of all, identify those areas of government activity that really are an all-or-nothing affair. Defense is a good example. If the country gets attacked, a victorious enemy won't distinguish between liberals and conservatives. The country wins or loses together. Liberals and conservatives can argue about how much defense to purchase, but once the decision is made, opting out is hard to defend morally or politically.
Environmental issues tend to fall into the same category. We all breathe the same air and mostly drink the same water. We suffer the same heat waves. In this case, it is the liberals who tend to want more government action, and the conservatives less. The debate is healthy and should be encouraged. But once the decision is made, everybody pays because everybody benefits.
What about programs that have particular and identifiable beneficiaries? Anti-poverty programs are an example. Should everyone be required to pay up? Liberals say yes; many conservatives say no. The liberals tend to argue from economic justice, saying that a country as wealthy as the United States can afford to ensure a minimum standard of living for all its citizens. Conservatives often counter that anti-poverty programs don't work and that they reduce the incentive for poor people to improve their lot on their own.
Unlike defense and environment, this area of government activity doesn't have to be all or nothing. In the days before the emergence of the welfare state, people of means who worried about poverty donated to charities. Hard-hearted people didn't. Presumably each group was satisfied with its level of contribution.
How about the poor folks—were they satisfied? Quite possibly not. But the question then becomes whether their satisfaction was anyone else's responsibility. People who felt responsible could always increase their donations. But should they have been allowed to compel others to donate?
This is the heart of the issue whenever government gets involved. In civilized societies, government is the only institution that can legitimately coerce people. It can fine them, imprison them, even execute them. In times of war, it can dragoon them into the military and make them risk their lives on behalf of the government's interpretation of what the nation's security requires.
This enormous power of government is what makes liberals like government and conservatives fear it. Liberals say that if government doesn't take on the big problems of society, those problems won't get solved. Conservatives say that if the problems can't be solved without government, maybe they shouldn't be solved.
An instance much discussed these days is inequality. Wrapping themselves in the Declaration of Independence, with its ringing assertion that "all men are created equal," liberals tout any number of programs designed to reduce inequality of various sorts. Anti-poverty programs aim to reduce economic inequality; affirmative action addresses racial inequality; Title IX levels the playing field between sexes and genders.
Conservatives respond that Jefferson was referring to political equality between Americans and Britons. And though almost no one defends racial inequality, more than a few note that economic inequality is what drives a capitalist system. LeBron James might have made a good schoolteacher, but he is a really good basketball player, and the difference a teacher's salary and what he makes on the basketball court is a signal that society wants him on the court. Conservatives often oppose the raising of minimum wages and answer complaints that an adult can't support a family on the existing minimum wage by saying that no adult should expect to support a family on the minimum wage. A family's breadwinner ought to find a better job.
Each response has its rejoinder. Any honest person ought to acknowledge that these issues are complicated. But a reasonable rule of thumb might be that government, with all its coercive power, should not be the first resort when something needs fixing. Where benefits can be subdivided and targeted, persuasion ought to be preferred to coercion. If people want to help the poor, let them give their own money. If that doesn't suffice, let them try to persuade other people to pitch in.
But government can be the last resort, not for problems that can be tackled piecemeal but for those where the entire nation is directly affected by the government's action or inaction.
"The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but can not do at all, or can not so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities," wrote Abraham Lincoln. "In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere."
It was good advice then, and it makes a good starting point for discussions today.
Private charity can only go so far. We saw it collapse in an event like the Great Depression. There are entire communities in this nation, small towns and the like, that would be incapable of existing on local largess. Much of the Conservatives’ beloved “American Heartland” their “Real America” wouldn’t exist without federal aid. Yet, like the Pharisee at lunch with Jesus they will ask “Who is my neighbor?” Sometimes they are more like Cain and ask “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
I do not believe in ZPG. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor then it cannot save the few who are rich. The real question is how much help should the poor get. Most people would agree there should be a safety net, UEC, and Social Security.
The many who are poor. let us remember are the backbone of national defense. If you don't like children then do you expect sheep to defend you? By the way I volunteered for military service and hold an honorable discharge from the USMC.
I believe in a strong national defense but also believe in universal free public education k-12 and easy access to college for those who are qualified. All of our children went to state schools and so limited their indebtedness. The state must provide for the common defense, to ensure domestic tranquility law and order. The state must maintain roads and offer some public transportation (buses AMTRAK etc). We are retired and often take AMTRAK to visit relatives. There must be some provision for public transportation for the poor and the elderly.
I worked hard to save enough money to get married -marrying at 26. We had three children (our ages were 27 to 38). I always worked as much overtime as possible and worked two or three jobs. We thought it better for the children to be educated at home in two languages, in religion and in literature and reading. Our children played sports but not club teams because we did not want them to travel and miss church too often. In high school they played a maximum of 2 sports because they had many AP classes and we thought AP classes were more important. At one point I worked four nights a week until 9pm and all day Saturday. My wife did not work outside of the home while the children were small. when our last child was in high school and through college she worked parttime as a medical translator. Essentially she paid for one daughter's college tuition. Our other daughter who did not get a car until she was 18 and working worked 35 hours a week at IHOP while going to school full time. She paid her own rent and tuition. The only financial aid we gave her was #1 cosigning the first year for her apartment #2 signing over a used car for her to commute to work. My son graduated in a six year period working full time the last three years. We had only one car for many years and have only one car now. We never had opulent vacations. Our biggest luxury was buying books (I can't live without books) , the WSJ and Commentary magazine. My wife and I shared one TV and one computer. I had a BOSE CD player and radio in my library and listened to podcasts and sports on the radio. I did not have a smart phone until 2020. Our oldest child is a high school Spanish teacher and soccer coach (he also works part time for the LA Dodgers as mentor/tutor). He has two children so far. Our middle child is a Dual Immersion k-6 teacher. She has two children so far. Our youngest is an engineer and unmarried. My wife often helps out with the day care for the youngest children staying 3-5 weeks at a time when necessary.