Julian Laws
A cursory study of microeconomics reveals some human behavioral patterns that would suggest a limited government better serves the population, especially at the federal level. When understood, the general populace of a country would want to keep as much of the decision-making as close to home as possible.
I mean this both figuratively and literally. Major decisions in policy should be made where it affects individuals the most: in their towns and communities. This would inspire the populace to take more of an interest in community affairs, cast more informed votes and increase the effectiveness of personal outreach. In the most literal of senses, keeping the decisions close to home means making families the primary decision-makers for what is best for them.
Mutual benefit and incentives
The first behavior is based on the idea of mutual benefit and incentives. Commerce functions on individuals and service/product providers making agreements on trade that gives each party the maximum benefit. If you’ve ever haggled with a vendor at the local farmers’ market, you’ve experienced this firsthand. Otherwise, individuals shop according to the return the product or service would give in exchange for the amount of money or labor they are willing to sacrifice for it. If the price is too high, they look for an alternative or go without. This transaction creates the most efficient allocation of labor and resources.
The more product and service industries are monitored, regulated and controlled by government, the more the efficiency of coming to a mutually beneficial result is hindered. Simply put, some people begin to pay more, in both labor and money, for less, while others pay less, in labor and money, yet receive more.
Adding an administrative third party creates a drain on money and labor. Such organizations are then funded through taxes, since no product or service is provided, adding to the “more” that people must pay for the decrease in their return. This de-motivates producers and enables non-contribution.
Human nature is geared to responding to incentives. The best possible situation is created when everyone contributes to the highest possible mutually beneficial point in a trade, either through labor or resources. Government intervention disrupts this exchange and falsifies the consequences of contribution to trade.
Paying more for less leaves producers with little or no incentive to continue production at the same rate. Paying less for more leaves consumers with little or no incentive to contribute with labor or resources. Maintaining the incentive to contribute is paramount to creating prosperity for both parties; otherwise, there is a net loss in wealth, and society as a whole is poorer.
This scenario is exacerbated when you consider that a majority vote is all that is needed to enact policy. The idea of mutual benefits is lost in a decision over what is best for me regardless of the cost to anyone else. You’ve heard the comparison of democracy to two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Nothing mutually beneficial is bound to come of it.
Position bundles and pet issues
The second behavior consists of focusing on issues that have the most importance to the individual at the expense of issues that are deemed insignificant or irrelevant. The number of issues that our current politicians are asked to vote upon has grown steadily from the days of this country’s inception.
Gone are the days (if they ever existed) wherein politicians concerned themselves with just the protection of property rights, national defense, and the enforcement of contracts. Politicians now have to have opinions and working policies in place on anything from abortion to labor unions, from health care to political uprisings and events in other countries. The bundle of their positions is continually growing. Chances of a citizen voting for a politician who accurately represents their views and opinions grow increasingly unlikely. Voters are more likely to vote for a candidate based on their pet issues and preferences than they are an entire position bundle.
The candidate’s influence, however, extends far beyond his vote concerning a single issue. He votes on taxes, foreign policy, commerce regulations, and an ever-increasing number of social issues, which for many people have a moral basis. Increasingly, people are plugging their nose and punching the ticket, voting for the least of all the evils. This partially explains why Congress’ approval rating is eternally low, yet there is very little turnover in representatives. The result is a Congress full of lesser evils.
Rational ignorance effect
The rational ignorance effect occurs when a rational individual decides that his or her one vote won’t make enough of a difference and he or she is unwilling to invest the time to research the issues in order to cast an informed vote. This can only get worse as position bundles grow. Even the most dedicated political students are strapped with the monumental task of deciphering the rhetoric spewed out by candidates on a variety of issues.
Why would the average person task himself or herself with such a thing? They wouldn’t. That’s why it’s called the rational ignorance effect. With the increase in position bundles the number of uninformed votes goes up, if the person votes at all.
Limited government
The only way to counter these effects is to remove the overarching authority and influence of the government and place them where they should be: at home. Home is where irresponsibility and ignorance hurt the most. The vital questions that need answering will press upon them until the pain of inaction gets too high to bear.
When somebody else isn’t making the decision for them or trying to legislate away natural consequences, people will seek an answer that is best for them, thereby creating mutually beneficial situations and progress. The best venue for this is not even in the public sphere. It is at the individual and family level.
Limited government allows more opportunity for mutually beneficial transactions, decreases the size of the position bundle of candidates, and makes it easier for people to educate themselves on the issues that do fall within the government sphere. Candidates will then begin to represent the electorate more accurately.
Further, candidates and representatives will be able to focus their attention on fewer issues, cast more informed votes themselves and decrease the waste in time and resources on the taxpayers. Government then has a better chance of being a positive in people’s lives rather than a negative.
The bottom line is that the spending and decision-making would happen where it will be done most efficiently and for the benefit of the largest number of people.
Julian Laws is a native New Mexican. He earned bachelor’s degrees in public relations and Spanish from Southern Utah University. He also graduated from Boston University with a master’s degree in international relations. He currently lives in Las Cruces and works at WSMR as a test operations officer.