In
a modern democracy, the people chose to "invest" a
portion of their national treasure, resources and individual earnings in
"government" because they recognize that:
-
In
some cases government may be more effective than individuals
in planning or setting
standards.
-
In
certain areas (i.e.: the Military, the Police and
Justice) only the government has a responsibility and the
authority to defend the life and freedom of all members of society.
This
section tries to identify how much should society invest in
government.
A 1999 IMPACT article by Giuseppe Gori1
showed that as we invest more and more in government, the
return on investment is not linear (i.e.: further increments of
investments produce less and less results).
By
looking at the conditions at the extremes (i.e.: a society
without government and a society where government is in charge
of everything), we can see that at both extremes society
deteriorates.
Society
however thrives when people delegate some
responsibilities to government.
It
follows that this curve has a maximum
point
somewhere in between.
The
existence of this optimum point has a very important
implication: After this point, any increase in government (e.g.:
extra programs) will produce a lower government revenue (the
opposite effect of what is normally expected).
This
implication is not understood by people who want to "help
the poor" at all times through government programs. When extra
programs
are implemented (under the above conditions),
they actually perform against the ability of government to
deliver social programs and against the interests the poor,
leading society in a spiral
of economic failure.
If
we have true
compassion, we should work towards maximizing
government revenue and be prudent in spending, in order to
maintain the best welfare and assistance programs we possibly
can, to help the really needy.
In many cases instead politicians
are more concerned about being perceived as compassionate than
actually achieving real results. Political leaders and
candidates want "to win" at all costs (a
characteristic enhanced by the current FPTP electoral system).
The
FCP is about substance and true
compassion, not image.
-
- -
REFERENCES:
[1]:
Do
Politicians know better? - The STING curve", IMPACT
Newsletter, January 1999, by Giuseppe Gori
[2]:
"undrestanding Social Economy",
By Giuseppe Gori.
