sappho@SRI-NIC.ARPA (08/10/86)
Well, actually I am not sure what services the government can better provide than private organizations. I have at various times leaned toward liberalism, socialism, and libertarianism, and have never quite been able to convince myself that any system was right. I don't believe in principle that it is impossible for the government to do something better than voluntary organizations, nor do I believe in principle that because something must be done, it must be done by the government. I would have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of having the government providing a service and see how they apply to each case, and also find out whether experience suggests that the government is better at providing this service than voluntary organizations. There are several possible advantages to having the government provide a service: 1. It is convenient for one group to take care of the overhead of allocating money among all the various good causes and judging who is needy rather than having each individual have to take the time. Since this same service can be provided by voluntary groups like United Way, it doesn't seem to be a good reason for the government to provide for charity. 2. There are some cases where people's negligence in providing for themselves might be hazardous to other people, e.g. contagious diseases. The government could provide these services cheaply to encourage people to use them. On the other hand, this is a list which could be extended very broadly, and no one really wants the government to do everyone's car repairs. 3. There are some things, like fires, earthquakes, and floods, which put everyone at some small amount of risk. It makes sense to me for everyone to share the cost of local fire departments. 4. It is easier for a government to provide a service uniformly over a geographic area. 5. Some services ought to be reliably provided. If people don't see voluntary organizations reliably providing these services, they may want the government to provide them. Of course, they also have the alternative of publicizing the problem and trying to form a voluntary organization which has a steady enough income that it can reliably provide this service. For instance, voters should be informed for a democracy to function, so the government provides voter information pamphlets, but the League of Women Voters seems to do a good job of this. Disadvantages are: 1. If the government provides it, there is bound to be a lot of paperwork, and it may be less efficient and more impersonal than private groups providing the same service. 2. The service is more distant from direct control by the people it serves. 3. It imposes the same priorities on everyone. 4. I think that it may be easier for voluntary charitable organizations to encourage a sense of dignity and self-reliance in the people they serve. 5. If the government provides a service like public education, there is no way it can do so without promoting some set of values, and people will be forever arguing about whose values to impose on everyone. Education should certainly be available to all children, but if the government is going to be in the business of providing it it seems better to me for it to provide vouchers for parents to use at the school of their choice than to provide public schools. Lynn Gazis sappho@sri-nic ------- -------