The general election looms, and if there is one desire common to all those in the contest, it is to be in government. The differences between the contenders are how they will govern.
One group favours a high level of monolithic state action, an increasingly large civil service, a preference for centralisation and collectivisation, a growing appetite for money earned by others in an effort to bring everyone to a similar economic state, and a high level of confidence that they know what is best for the country.
Another group favours a slightly lower level of state action, a reduced civil service for mainly economic reasons, a lesser hunger for the money earned by others, but an appetite for it nonetheless, and a high level of confidence that they know what is best for the country.
The governing group will be selected by the people – as it should be in a liberal democracy – who probably haven’t given much thought to anything other than what the government can do for them.
And that seems to be the New Zealand way. If there is a problem – be it potholes in the roads or “unsafe” content on the internet, issues about infrastructure failures or a worry about “disinformation” – the government must do something; the government must regulate. The government is seen as the solution to every problem. But as US president Ronald Reagan so correctly observed, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
The reasons I endorse the statement are these: first, requiring or demanding government solutions to every problem results in a loss of liberty and freedom of action in that particular area. Take, for example, the Department of Internal Affairs’ consultation on safer online services and media platforms. It interferes with freedom of expression and has the potential for the government to have ongoing control of the message.
Second, a demand for such solutions creates a dependency that is unhealthy and erodes personal independence, self-reliance, initiative and autonomy.
Third, expecting the government to solve every problem stifles creativity, innovation, and the growth of productivity.
Fourth, any apparent solution devised by the government will by its very nature be unsatisfactory because it will be based upon a “one size fits all” approach. It will be based on a set of assumptions, so the basis for the solution will be the collective and not the individual.
Finally, government solutions and the decisions underpinning them are rarely made by politicians. The reality is that the unelected elite – the civil service and “officials” – are responsible for the detail and delivery of policy. It is well known that public servants refer to our elected representatives as “the temporary staff”. One has only to read policy and cabinet papers (if one can decipher the turgid language of the bureaucrat) to understand that the decisions of the politicians have been directed by the flow of the material provided by “officials”.
The proper interest of government can be summarised as follows: public safety and security, health, education, economic security and stability, provision of public services and a safety net for the disadvantaged.
These services – remembering that democratic governments do not “rule” or “lead” their citizens but are, in fact, the servants of the people – are limited, and reflect what I perceive to be the proper role of a non-interventionist government.
The problem is that there are myriad areas of intrusive state activity, blundering into places where it has no business to be operating. But here is the irony. Every time there is a perceived problem, the cry is always the same.
So, when you hear the call “We need to regulate …”, or “The government must do something”, your response should be, “Be careful what you wish for.”
David Harvey is a retired district court judge.
