Socialism, oligarchy or in between; exactly what is government for

It's pretty obvious these days that folks are getting fed up with the federales, and it could be that we actually are going to see a sea change in what people expect their government to do for them.

I will say one thing before I get into the question:

I am not a believer in states' rights at all. I think that's an issue that was settled in 1865. Until then, people said "the United States are ..." when referring to the country. Since then, the USA has pretty much been "is."

When I think of states, I always remember a joke by one of my favorite comedians.

Jake Johansen said that he grew up in Iowa and left when he was 21.

"Until then, I didn't know we were free to go."

Now I'm sure every state, no matter how bad, has its defenders. But the fact is, some states really are better than others. Anyone who doesn't think that has never been to Colorado ... or to Arkansas.


So I start from the belief that we are all Americans, that we aren't citizens of California, or Texas, or Michigan. The rules ought to be pretty much the same no matter where we live.

I think our government starts with three basic purposes:

1. Defend the country from outside attack.

2. Keep chaos to a minimum.

3. Keep the rich from turning the poor into soylent green.

Realistically, there is also a fourth purpose.

4. Protect wealth.

One of the most difficult things is to strike a balance between the third and fourth purposes. In some times, we crack down on the rich. In others, we let them run wild.

But let's look at a more recent purpose, one that certainly is something of a mixed blessing.

5. Protect us from ourselves.

Think about this one for a minute.

Why do we have Social Security? Because too many people would fail to save money for their old age and would wind up destitute. Does that make Social Security a good thing ... or a crutch that has served to infantilize us over the years?

Why do we have laws against drug use ... or pornography ... or prostitution? Shouldn't people have the right to destroy their own lives if they want?

There really isn't much question that the advent of health insurance in the 1940s has pushed health costs higher than they otherwise would have been. When folks aren't paying the doctor themselves, they don't think much about the real cost.

Why did we surrender our Fourth Amendment rights under the aegis of the War on Drugs? Or our Sixth Amendment rights to the War of Terror?

War of terror, Mike? Really?

Yeah, I'm snarky. So what?

Why does the government bend over backward to protect illegal immigrants from deportation? It certainly has a lot to do with cheap labor and keeping wages low.

Why do we allow truly slimy people to govern us? Why is it that so many people can be tarred with the worst kind of scandal and still keep getting elected?

When Benjamin Franklin said we had a republic -- if we could keep it -- he was referring to the necessity to maintain an educated, involved electorate that would vote in the national interest instead of their own interest.

We've got way too many people on both sides of the aisle now who don't have a clue other than what they hear in attack ads, and who vote their own short-term interests when they do have a clue.

My guess is we could dismantle half of the government and not only never miss it, but actually be better off in the long run.

We'd have to start with half of the Defense Department, but we would still dominate the world militarily with half the military we now have. We just wouldn't have troops in so many countries.

Are we better off because we have an Education Department? Or an Energy Department? Or the fact that we give billions in subsidies to oil companies, agricultural conglomerates and all sorts of other for-profit businesses?

Some of our programs aimed at helping those less fortunate have been so inefficient that we actually would have been better off just giving poor people the money directly.

Certainly, there are things only government can do and things government does very well.

The Interstate Highway System comes to mind. Imagine if it had been left to the individual states. You might be driving on a well-maintained modern superhighway till you cross a state line and find yourself driving on a dirt road.

And I certainly would favor more regulation rather than less to prevent the megawealthy from stealing that small part of American wealth they haven't gotten their hands on yet.

But it seems to me that we need to grow up.

I think John F. Kennedy was right for his time, but wrong for this one when he told us to ask not what our country could do for us, but what we could do for our country.

Forget what our country can do for us.

Forget what we can do for our country.

A helluva lot of us ought to be asking what we can do for ourselves and our families.

That's the real question.