The Forest and the Trees:
What is the Role of Government

Alexander M. Goldfinger

[Reprinted from The Gargoyle, October, 1961]

One can be too close to the trees to see the forest. Most of us are, in our concepts of political concerns. Host of us have definite views concerning the . current controversial topics such as Federal aid to schools, to farmers, to the unemployed, to build bomb-shelters, to the aged, and a host of others.

The argument in favor of these Federal projects usually is that private enterprise and initiative are unable or unwilling to aid those who need aid, so the Federal Government must fill the void. The proponents of Federal aid usually make a mixed emotional-intellectual appeal such as "The poor children of Mississippi and Alabama should not be penalized because their local governments cannot afford to give them decent schools and competent teachers. The children are potential responsible citizens and should be educated even if the Federal government must come to their aid."

If the alternative is poorly educated children with education financed at the local level, or well educated children supported by the Federal government, many good hearted, well-intentioned individuals will suppress their aversion to Federal aid and acquiesce in such a course. The statement above, with the two alternatives assumes that no other course of action is possible than poor schools and ill- equipped teachers at the local level or adequate schools and teachers with Federal help.

Totally ignored is the reason why the local communities cannot afford better facilities and instructors. Totally ignored is the fact that the confiscation by Federal government of so great a part of each wealth-producer's income leaves but little that is available for the local community where the actual services are rendered.

Similarly, in advocating medical care for the aged, unemployment payments and other "welfare" goals, proponents emphasize the failure of the private sector of our economy to protect the needy and conclude that Federal intervention is necessary.

Each of us considers the individual items and weighs the merits or objections and then decides that we are in favor of such a measure or opposed to it.

In the last presidential political campaign we were warned by the advocates of a New Frontier with the dire consequences of having the Soviet Union enjoying an economic growth greater than ours. It was pointed out that in the last decade the U.S. economic growth was 2.5% per annum while Russia's growth was over 3.5%. We were told the failure of the U.S. to equal or surpass the economic growth of the Soviet Union would mean that in the years to come our potential to produce defense and consumer goods would be less than that of Russians and the peril was limited only by the imagination of the writer or orators. We were told that to overcome this deficiency of economic growth it was necessary that the "public sector" of our economy must be enlarged, that is, the Federal government must spend more money to stimulate employment and production.

Not said was the fact that the Federal government can spend money only if it obtains it from its citizens in taxes or goes into debt. Government debt is usually monetized, that is, it is a paper transaction in which the Federal Reserve Bank or its member private banks underwrite the debt and, rather than use money that private individuals save, create new bank deposits, backed only by the I.O.U.'s issued by the government and thus the government can spend what neither it nor the lending banks had before the transaction. This leads to inflation of the currency, the surplus of money to command the goods and services in the market-place. Thus the cost of living goes up and the purchasing value of the dollar diminishes, thus affecting every savings account, life insurance policy and obligations payable in fixed dollars.

Beyond the fiscal policy nonsense, beyond the desire of kind, well-intentioned people to aid the less fortunate there is a greater problem which every thoughtful person should contemplate, the basic conception of the function of government.

Either the concept that government is merely the policeman authorized and armed to protect individuals in their right to life and property or the concept that the State has for its purpose the duty and obligation of providing for the welfare of all of its people, is to oversimplify the two opposing views.

Ours is a duplex system of government. Each of the fifty states is a sovereign entity. But all of the states are part of a federation of states comprising the federal government.

When the writer was in law-school he learned that the federation of states had limited objectives and goals and it was then rightfully said that "the powers conferred by the people to the federal government were confined to those stated on the page embodying the Constitution and the Amendments thereof."

The Constitution explicitly states that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the people. Ours was set up as a government of limited powers. And under that system the people prospered and the United States became a great world power.

Under the original system, the function of the government was not to equalize wealth or to provide for each person's welfare, but to leave people alone to work out their own destinies but to prevent anyone from harming another's person or property. This was liberty in its true sense.

What the government set out to do, prevent anyone from stealing from or harming another the government itself now violates by collectively taking (stealing) the property of some and giving it to others. In other words, the government now paternalistically seeks equality, not the equality of opportunity but to minimize the difference between individuals in their ambitions, work-potential and their acquisition of wealth.

When the writer was a young attorney he was able to advise clients as to their rights and obligations. He could tell them with assurance that, under law, government could do this but could not do that. Then came the new concept that it was the government's obligation to secure the "welfare" of each individual. Then came the accepted slogan that everyone has a right to a job and a livelihood and if they could not obtain such, the government would supply them. When the then U.S. Supreme Court held that some of the "welfare" _legislation passed by Congress was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court justices were dubbed as "horse and buggy" old men and soon other justices were appointed whose "welfare" concepts were well known.

Under the modern interpretation of the welfare concept of government, the actions of the government to regulate, take-over and control the lives and property of all people goes steadily forward. Expediency is the only brake. The right of the government to interfere in the economic determination of the people is now established and, of course, the liberty of the individual has been infringed and lessened.

In all discussions or thinking of the wisdom of Federal aid to education, to the aged, to the needy, to the unalloyed, much as our feelings of compassion may motivate us to help those less fortunate than ourselves, we should remember that every such Federal aid leads us that much nearer to the inevitable result of autocratic regulation and control of all human behavior, that is to autocratic dictatorship.

What can we do about it? Certainly, clear thinking on our part is the first step and then the willingness, yes the eagerness of each of us to risk the unpopularity of our "welfare" friends by persuading them that the long view of every governmental action should be considered, will help. The liberty we and our children will enjoy must be deserved. "Liberty," it has been said, "is the right to make mistakes." To supinely endure more and mere encroachments of our right to make our own decisions will yield us only the fruit of complete regulation of every detail of our personal lives. We will deserve the kind of life we will have.