Abortion 1: The purpose of government

In order to understand how I reach my conclusions about abortion, you have to understand how I see the government. I think there are certain things for which we need the government, in which it is a particularly useful voice and arm of the people as a whole, in which it is our collective bargainer and protector. But then there are certain areas in which the government is best being as small and limited as possible. You may disagree with me about where government should flourish and where it should shrink, and that is why we have different political parties, and an endless ongoing debate about government. The point is that my conclusions about abortion stem directly from my view of what government should and shouldn't do. So, I will give a brief overview now.

The government should protect us.

This means many things. It means that it should maintain a military, so that we are not overrun from the outside (not necessarily to the imperialistic extent that we have now, but to some reasonable extent.) It means that it provides a necessary counter-balance to growing corporate power, which could enslave workers just as easily as any government if it weren't for some sort of regulation (think sweat shops). It means that it provides protections such as the FDA, to make sure our food and water supply is tested before it reaches us. In these types of situations, the government acts as a spokesperson for all of us. "We don't want rat feces in our hamburgers!" we cry. So, the government takes our collective financial power, through taxes, and forms a system to protect us. It's safety in numbers. It gives us stability and security, by providing protections we couldn't supply as individuals.

The government provides services.

It is my belief that some things we need as a society just don't make sense as a for-profit business. We don't want to have to pay directly for police, for example, because we want poor people to be able to call for help. We don't want to have to pay directly for schools, because we want poor people to be able to get an education. Infrastructure, roads, libraries, etc., etc., etc.

The government can and should pay for all of these services, because, once again, they're things we all want our society to have, and we want everyone to have free access to them. We don't want to have to stop and balance our checkbook before calling the police. We want them to be there when we need them. We would feel guilty if a poor person died because they couldn't afford to call for help. So, we, as a society, put these services in place.

I will also add a note that some things don't work as for-profit businesses, because it creates an immediate conflict of interest. My favorite example of this is the health care industry. To be short, if an insurance company loses money when they have to pay out for your treatment, and makes money when you don't get treatment - how great of treatment do you think they want to provide for you? It is an inherent conflict of interest. And they will find ways to deny coverage or cut corners, because that's what they must do to make a profit. It simply should not exist as a for-profit system, and it should be replaced by a government system, one that, like our police, can treat all people fairly, regardless of their financial status.

If you think that such programs are "socialist," they may be to some extent. But I believe, as a small business owner, that capitalism can best thrive when there is a safety net. People are less afraid to make a leap and take a chance when they know that if their business venture fails, they can still go to the doctor or call the police. But that is a discussion for another day.

Here is what government should NOT do:

Government should NOT tell us how to live.

Government is here to protect and serve. And one of the strongest things it exists to protect is our personal freedom. It should not tell us what to believe, who to love, what to do with our bodies, what to eat, what to smoke, what to drink, etc. As much as possible, I believe that government should stay out of the day to day lives of its people. Because, as I said in my post on The Separation of Church and State, any time we push our specific beliefs and moral agenda on other people, we run the risk of others doing it to us. We weaken the strength of freedom itself, and put ourselves at risk of others oppressing our beliefs. Therefore, I believe that if any subject at all is a "grey area" it should be left up to the discretion of the individual. And this belief has led me to believe that a great many things should be legalized - not necessarily because I like the activity itself, but because I like having the freedom to choose for myself what is right and wrong, and I want to extend that freedom to others. I don't believe that the government should be a parent, a babysitter, or a clergyman. I believe the government should be a blind protector of freedom.