Government itself is a special interest group?

[lawrocket 3]

I heard last night Scott Rasmussen state the following:
"Sixty-nine percent of voters believe the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for itself."

I've long believed that government - especially federal - is something that focuses on its own power, growing its influence, etc. But viewing it as a "special interest group" is a new one for me. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

It's the special interest group that others go to. Think about it - if one group wants the federal government to regulate something, they go to the feds, apply some grease, and the fed increases the power. Or, another group feeds the government to NOT act.

Any thoughts on this?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>Any thoughts on this?

I agree. They have their own specific agendas, desires etc that are unique to them. Look at how government contractors operate; it's very different than how contractors in other industries operate. They adapt themselves to the special interests of government.

Of course, "voters" are a special interest group, too.

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Well, OK. But then, who is NOT a "special interest group"? Does the term have any meaning of any significance, if it applies to everybody? Why has "special interest group" become a pejorative term, when we all have "special interests"?

As far as government is concerned, you can make a case for applying the term if you want to I guess. But the insinuation is that governments want to grow their own power for no other (or better) reason than just to grow their own power. I'd suggest that what really happens is most often people demand that the government provide some service that was not provided before, perhaps in response to some incident or public awareness of a problem. For example, 300 years ago sewage and industrial waste was dumped untreated into rivers, often the same rivers where people got their drinking water. When populations were small, and factories mainly consisted of water wheels to drive sawmills and lathes, "the solution to pollution is dilution" was generally good enough. As cities got bigger, and new industries started to produce toxic wastes (such as mercury from paper bleaching for example), problems from communicable diseases and toxins became more and more frequent. When such problems became severe enough, people demanded laws to prevent dumping sewage and industrial wastes into drinking water supplies. This necessitated a change in the way things are done, compared to previous practice: wastes have to be treated to the point where they are safe, or they have to be captured and disposed of in a safe manner. This costs money, so there is always a temptation to cheat, and laws that are not enforced quickly will come to be ignored. So now we have created a need for some government entity to determine what levels of toxins or wastes are low enough to be safe in water supplies, establish regulations to create a legal obligation to clean waste streams to that standard, and establish a police force to enforce those laws. A whole new government bureaucracy (the EPA in this case) has come into existence, one that would have been almost completely unnecessary when the country was founded.

So, why do we have this new bureaucracy? Is it because some megalomaniacs in government positions just wanted to increase their power? Or is it perhaps because people didn't much care for dying of cholera because they were getting a dose of other people's shit in every glass of water? Or maybe because they didn't much relish the idea of their kids being destroyed by Minamata Disease because that pulp and paper plant upstream was dumping mercury into the river?

I know you will probably disagree with this, but to me the government is an entity we the people created to enforce our collective will, especially with regard to those things we cannot efficiently do individually, and which do not lend themselves to being provided by for-profit private enterprise. The judicial system is a manifestation of "the people's" desire for a mechanism to enforce laws. A "private enterprise" model wouldn't work, in so far as we don't want a system that has to generate its own revenue and so will be for sale to the highest bidder. As individuals we have no power to dictate the behavior of private industries; any such action would have to reflect the consensus of the people, and it could only be enforced by government, the entity we created to carry out our collective desires.

Of course, once any bureaucrat has been charged with responsibility for carrying out some aspect of the will of the people, they will naturally seek to have the tools needed to do the job. Sometimes, conflicts will arise between different desires "the people" may express. For example, it's clear that many of "the people" expect the government to keep them safe from terrorist attacks. Not just "sort of safe", but "absolutely safe". If you demand that the risk of terrorist attack be reduced to zero , that could only be achieved by monitoring everything that every individual says and does. Of course, that creates an unacceptable loss of privacy and intrudes excessively on every aspect of freedom. So now the bureaucrat finds him/herself without the tools to carry out their responsibilities as thoroughly as the public expects, and they know they will still be held to account should any terrorist attack get through. Should we be surprised when our bureaucrat lobbies to get the tools for the task they have been given? People should at least try to recognize that these conflicts exist. When they demand that government services be reduced or eliminated, they should be explicit about the consequences they are willing to bear. If you want to get rid of the EPA, you should be prepared to state that you are willing to accept the consequences of increased pollution of water and air. If you want to get rid of the TSA/Homeland Security, you should be prepared to state that you are willing to live with a certain probability that US citizens will die in terrorist attacks. Instead, what we have is a public (or a segment of the public) that expects all these services (clean water and air, safe food, protection from terrorism, etc etc) but thinks they shouldn't have to pay for them, and complains whenever they are inconvenienced by "government regulation".

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)