The American system was established to provide limited government. The independent existence of the United States was based on certain truths:. On that foundation, the American Founders established a system of government based on delegated, enumerated, and thus limited powers.
The American Founders did not pluck those truths out of thin air, nor did they simply invent the principles of American government. They drew on their knowledge of thousands of years of human history, during which many peoples struggled for liberty and limited government. There were both defeats and victories along the way.
The results were distilled in the founding documents of the American experiment in limited government: the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the state constitutions, and the Constitution of the United States.
The American Founders were careful students of history. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.
Through the study of history, the Founders learned about the division of power among judicial, legislative, and executive branches; about federalism; about checks and balances among divided powers; about redress and representation; and about the right of resistance, made effective by the legal right to bear arms, an ancient right of free persons. Liberty and limited government were not invented in ; they were reaffirmed and strengthened. The American Revolution set the stage for extending the benefits of liberty and limited government to all.
As John Figgis, professor of modern history at Cambridge University, noted at the beginning of the 20th century:. The sonorous phrases of the Declaration of Independence … are not an original discovery, they are the heirs of all the ages, the depository of the emotions and the thoughts of seventy generations of culture.
The roots of limited government stretch far back, to the establishment of the principle of the higher law by the ancient Hebrews and by the Greek philosophers. The story of the golden calf in the Book of Exodus and the investigations of nature by Aristotle both established — in very different ways — the principle of the higher law. Law is not merely an expression of will or power; it is based on transcendent principles.
The legislator is as bound by law as is the subject or citizen; no one is above the law. Those various movements reinforced each other in a multitude of ways. The assertion of the freedom of the church and even of its supremacy over the secular powers was bound up with the idea of the higher law, by which all are judged — emperor, pope, and peasant alike.
Let the king therefore give to the law what the law gives to him, dominion and power; for there is no king where will, and not law, bears rule. The supremacy of the law over the exercise of power is a hallmark of the Western legal tradition.
The laws must be understandable and actually capable of being followed. Recognition of the principle of reciprocity between the holders of power and the general populace was also widespread. Rights were enumerated in constitutions and charters. Those rights were not gifts from the powerful, which could be taken away on a whim, but something on which one could take a stand.
Tied up in the notion of a chartered right was the ancillary power to defend that right, even to the point of resistance with force of arms. They were won over many centuries at great sacrifice. Just how precious that heritage is can be gleaned from comparing it with the history of Russia, where throughout its history there has been very little reciprocity between rulers and ruled and no independent power able to challenge the rulers.
The principality of Muscovy and its successors were highly despotic, with no charters of liberty, no power higher than the tsar or his successors, the Communist Party leaders and now Vladimir Putin , no limits on power — in effect, no law.
They also remind us how important it is for us to maintain our heritage of limited government and the rule of law. The struggle for limited government was a struggle of liberty against power.
The demands for religious liberty and the protection of property were fused in the heroic resistance of the Netherlands to the Empire of Spain in their great revolt. The Dutch inspired the English to rise up against the Stuart kings, who sought to fasten upon the English the absolutism that had made such headway on the Continent.
The American Revolution was one link in a long chain of revolutions for liberty. The rise of the Dutch Republic must ever be regarded as one of the leading events of modern times….
For America the spectacle is one of still deeper import. The Dutch Republic originated in the opposition of the rational elements of human nature to sacerdotal dogmatism and persecution — in the courageous resistance of historical and chartered liberty to foreign despotism.
The Dutch, like the British and the Americans after them, became a shining example of what was possible when people were free: prosperity was possible without the guiding hand of the king and his bureaucrats; social harmony was possible without enforced religious conformity; and law and government were possible without an unlimited and absolute sovereign.
The story of the attempts to institute absolutism in the Netherlands and in England was well known by the American Founders, who were, after all, British colonists. Determining what is and is not within the scope of a safety net, properly understood, begins with the question: "What is an unacceptable standard of living in America? It is probably fair to say that conservatives and liberals alike believe it is unacceptable for someone in America in to go without access to essential medical care, sufficient food, and basic shelter.
Providing these minimal goods is therefore an appropriate function of government. But it is certainly not the role of the safety net to substantially increase material equality for its own sake. Nor should it completely denude life of non-catastrophic risks, or distribute tax dollars to cronies and favored political constituencies.
Still, conservatives need to do more than simply explain why today's approach to government is inefficient and inequitable. They cannot merely complain about bloat to be reduced and cut; rather, they must make an affirmative case for a conservative vision of the safety net. It is up to them to limit the definitions of "essential," "sufficient," and "basic" so that they do not stretch beyond all recognition.
This requires identifying and supporting those benefits and programs that do pass the "essential," "sufficient," and "basic" test, while also being clear-eyed about those benefits that fail to meet this standard. Some illustrations may help to clarify. If we accept that Medicaid in fact improves health outcomes among the poor and that its costs can be controlled over the long term, the program represents an appropriate function of the safety net.
Subsidizing prescription drugs for seniors of all income levels, however, does not. This is simply a political favor to a key voting bloc. Food-aid programs for the indigent are part of the safety net, but agricultural subsidies to prop up farmers' incomes are not.
Rent control and the National Flood Insurance Program, though, are not. A guaranteed minimum Social Security benefit that lifts seniors to the poverty line is part of the safety net, but paying anyone who is not poor any more than he paid into the system plus a reasonable rate of return is not.
These approved aid programs are still very costly, but at least they can be defended as an essential part of the safety net, allowing clear lines to be drawn separating them from unnecessary government bloat. To be sure, government can and should eliminate waste from these programs; moreover, the welfare-reform law showed that government support programs should never be designed to be permanent, as such policies can produce intergenerational cycles of dependency.
Despite this room for improvement, however, few conservatives really want to kill these programs and stop providing their services completely. The conservative critique of the modern American safety net isn't an objection to its existence; rather, it is that it has transformed into something it was never intended to be that is fundamentally at odds with America's limited-government principles.
How to reform the safety net and the details of its implementation are important questions for the conservative project. There are four major sources of market failure.
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to grant patents and copyrights to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"; that is, to establish temporary monopolies over intellectual property as an incentive to innovate.
Although the specifics of intellectual-property protection are fiercely debated, the idea that some form of intellectual-property protection is an appropriate function of the government enjoys wide currency among economists. Unfortunately, governments have at best a mediocre track record of sorting "good" monopolies from "bad" ones and making policy and litigating accordingly. In short, when it comes to addressing this particular form of market failure, the government has not shown itself a competent or reliable defender of the public interest.
The second major source of market failure is the economic problem of externalities. In a nutshell, externalities affect our well-being outside the realm of prices and free markets. A classic example is the manufacturer that causes extensive pollution in the course of making its products: The costs of the pollution are borne not by the market participants the producer and the consumer , but rather by the public breathing contaminated air and drinking unclean water.
Because externalities exist outside of markets, markets are often unable to neutralize them, which is why addressing them might legitimately fall under the purview of government.
It is worth noting, however, that markets are not always incapable of correcting for externalities. Ronald Coase won a Nobel Prize in economics by showing that private bargaining can work at least as well as government action to solve externality problems, if property rights are clearly defined and bargaining can occur efficiently. Rather than banning pollution or setting arbitrary limits on it, then, a more efficient solution might be to assign legal property rights to, for instance, a river, and let private parties negotiate the acceptable amount of pollution.
This idea is known as the "Coase Theorem," and there are myriad examples of this approach being used to effectively solve externality problems in lieu of government action. As with monopolies, however, complications arise from the fact that externalities can sometimes be positive. Beekeepers, for instance, create a positive externality for farmers whose crops are pollinated by the insects.
Externalities are, in other words, another market failure easily identifiable and solvable on a blackboard, but devilishly tricky to ameliorate in the real world through government diktat.
The third major form of market failure is public goods. These are goods and services that possess, at least to a large degree, two key traits: They are non-rival and non-excludable. In other words, the enjoyment of a public good by one person does not preclude the enjoyment of that good by another person, and it is not possible or cost-effective to exclude some people typically, those who have not paid for the privilege from using the good.
National defense, police, roads, and bridges are classic examples of public goods. Public goods can make markets fail because they tend to be underprovided by the free market. Many of these goods are thus supplied by government, funded through taxes. There are, however, two major downsides to government provision of public goods. First, the term has been abused beyond recognition in public debate.
Political liberals like to claim, for instance, that education is a public good. This is obviously untrue: Consuming education is both excludable many private schools and public charter or magnet schools don't let just any student walk in and matriculate and rival if not, class sizes would not matter.
Education creates positive externalities, but that does not make it a public good. Second, it is far from clear that government can identify the socially optimal levels of public-good provision and of taxation to pay for it.
After all, whether we purchase the right amount of national defense, roads, or fire service is a topic of continuous and heated debate, as are the taxes required to fund these items.
Conservatives rightly question whether government provision of these public goods is closer to optimal than what an unsubsidized market would provide. One timely policy example is the case of health-insurance markets, particularly under the guaranteed-issue requirements of Obamacare, in which insurers must cover all applicants regardless of health status.
If individuals can obtain and drop coverage without worrying about being denied insurance if they become sick, people who know they are likely to be healthy will forgo insurance and premium costs. When they believe they are likely to need more medical care, they'll sign up for coverage. On the insurer's end, the result is that the pool of people covered at any given time is likely to be composed disproportionately of those needing extensive medical care. This drives premiums up even further, producing the so-called insurance market "death spiral.
The government can help in this kind of situation by requiring thorough disclosures in certain types of transactions and by prohibiting insider trading and many other market predations. And, as the case of Obamacare shows, government intervention can in some cases exacerbate the effects of asymmetries. Thus, while information asymmetries can be legitimate cause for government involvement in the economy, regulation tends to be an overly blunt instrument.
What do all these sources of market failure tell us about how to shrink government? They offer the foundation for identifying and articulating a clear set of criteria by which to determine when, and how, government can permissibly intervene in markets. This in turn can help conservatives support government intervention when it is required without opening the door to an endless expansion of regulatory red tape and unrestrained spending on public works.
In developing these guidelines, it is necessary to begin by placing the burden of proof on those advocating government intervention. President Obama has also championed the "public good" of high-speed rail, which will supposedly revolutionize the transit system and have long-term, widespread benefits. In truth, however, high-speed rail fails the test for being classified as a public good: It is both rivalrous and excludable. Moreover, it is not clear that the socially optimal level of high-speed rail provision outside certain highly urbanized East Coast areas is greater than zero.
But even if some perceived problem does meet the technical definition of market failure, that alone is insufficient to compel public action. The market must also be failing in practice. When people spend a Saturday morning cleaning up a neighborhood park or a philanthropist funds basic cancer research, they are overcoming market failures. In fact, people avoid many market failures just by being decent and courteous.
Most businesspeople want to prosper honestly, not by cheating consumers or using predatory business tactics even if they could get away with those practices. You could not be signed in, please check and try again. Sign in with your library card Please enter your library card number.
Related Content Related Overviews rule of law absolutism constitution John Locke — philosopher See all related overviews in Oxford Reference ».
Show Summary Details Overview limited government. Reference entries limited government in Dictionary of the Social Sciences Length: 78 words. All rights reserved.
Sign in to annotate. Delete Cancel Save. Cancel Save.
0コメント