How Much Government Power is Good_

.docx

School

California State University, Northridge *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

280

Subject

Political Science

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MateLeopardMaster1019

Introduction: How Much Government Power is Good? The line where government planning and the state should be drawn is a topic that remains controversial in the 21st century. Some argue, such as Karl Marx, that the state should have complete power over its population to fulfill the interests of the general population, that is, a stateless society in which the economy is completely controlled by the state and the needs of the people are handled by the state. At the same time, others contend that the state’s power should be pulled back and that the administrative state should be eliminated. Furthermore, the involvement of the state in many matters may have the unintended consequence of a population’s dangerous road to totalitarianism. This argument was put forth by the great Friedrich Hayek who advocated for free-market capitalism and a limited role of government in the economy. On the other end of things, Peter Kropotkin argued against the role of the state in upholding communism through a stateless society upheld by the voluntary association of individuals. However, which of these economists struck the right balance the government should have in its population’s livelihood? Arguably, none. The issues facing the modern world cannot be addressed through the old economic philosophies put forth by Marx, Hayek, or Kroptkin. The lines they draw between government planning and the state fail to account for the many ways the world operates. For one, Hayek contends that free-market principles prohibit excessive government control, yet, he fails to comprehend that environmental concerns that would be better left regulated by the state, rather than corporate interests, would be more efficient at addressing environmental conditions that increase the harmful effects of global climate change. Similarly, Karl Marx’s vision for a stateless society in which the state maintains ownership over all property and all of the economy to fulfill the interests of the working class is at most, idealistic. It is conceivable that a state if controlled by the wrong few hands of selfish individuals, could be hijacked to fulfill the interests of a minority of individuals and stray from the true vision of Marxism. It is naive to believe the state will always seek out the interests of the general population if there are no constraints placed on the power of the state. On the end of things, Kroptin’s view of a stateless society without the guidance of a state is also pure fantasy. The belief that individuals will voluntarily distribute goods to the needy and that this voluntary association will never fracture due to the selfish interests of particular individuals, or that the rules will be self-enforced by a population truly overlooks human nature. Simply put, all three of these schools of thought truly overlook reality. Hayek overlooks the harms capitalism may impose on the general population, Marx overlooks the potential for an authoritarian government to seize control over the state, and Kroptkin overlooks the reality of human nature. The fine line between government and power should be drawn at a balance that upholds liberty, and promotes capitalism, but prevents abuses by capitalists, upholds the rule of law, and is constrained by checks and balances. In short, the current framework in government and power interaction is not the ideal balance of power to ensure the prosperity of all citizens. Why Business cannot Self Regulate CO2 Emissions

According to Nasa, “ Without major action to reduce emissions, global temperature is on track to rise by 2.5 ° C to 4.5 ° C (4.5 ° F to 8 ° F) by 2100” (Nasa, 2023). Climate change is a phenomenon that has the propensity to endanger many lives in the coming century by way of intense heat waves, the disruption of food systems, the scarcity of water, and the catastrophic aftermath of environmental disasters(World Health Organization, 2023). Climate change, if not seriously addressed in the coming years, will prove to be catastrophic to all of humanity. According to Hayek, the government should not interfere in crises such as the effects of climate change because it would cause inefficiency in the economy, “ The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it was in the nineteenth century. And the liberal view holds that, in the field of economics, there is no more important rule than that the market order produces a more efficient allocation of resources than any known alternative” (Hayek, 1956). If it were up to Hayek, he’d contend that the government should not intervene in the affairs of industries that are responsible for carbon emissions. Hayek’s free market principles are highly admirable because they advocate for the importance of individualism and liberty. But, giving too much liberty to industry leaders and individuals to emit carbon dioxide is harmful. Hayek believed that market solutions would spearhead an efficient approach to decreasing the amount of emissions emitted. Would leaders in the oil industry willingly seek to impair an industry they profit from? Not willingly. Past efforts demonstrate that industry leaders will solely pursue their interests, even if it is at the expense of the general population. A 2015 investigation by InsideClimate News indicates that ExxonMobil, one of the largest oil and gas corporations on the globe, was aware, since the 1980s, of the human activity involving carbon dioxide emissions that were fueling global climate change(Banerjee, Cushman, Hasemayer and Song, 2015). Despite knowing the potential consequences carbon dioxide emissions gas and oil have on the effects of global climate change, Exxon spent heavily on advertisements that disenfranchised the responsibility humans have in carbon dioxide emissions and its effects on climate change. Is this the market solution Hayek advocated for? Because Exxon’s deliberate attempts to disenfranchise the existence of climate change do not present any market solutions to addressing climate change. It presents ethical challenges on transparency that corporations, such as ExxonMobil, clearly lack. The absence of government intervention in regulating the flow of information and carbon emissions is impairing human efforts to address the effects of global climate change. The unfortunate truth is that some individuals cannot act responsibly in a manner that benefits all individuals. As a consequence, the government must have some degree of control to regulate the economy to ensure that industries do not pursue interests that are antithetical to the general well-being of the population. Hence, while Hayek’s position on limited government and free-market principles is admirable for its prioritization of individualism and the pursuit of liberty, it is not so admirable for its lack of attention to the potential harms of selfish interests on the general population.

Too much Power Creates Tyranny Ideally, communism is an ideology that is perhaps beautiful. It assumes that the state will pursue the interests of the general population, provide resources to those who need them, and ensure equality. It seeks to create an inherently equal society. However, the ideal state of communism is probably not possible. Marx contends that the state if controlled by individuals who share common interests, that is, a state controlled by proletarians, will ensure that human prosperity and equality remain prevalent in the affairs of the state “ The proletariat aims to gain political power to further its interests” and “ The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, the conquest of political power by the proletariat.” (Marx, 1848). What it fails to take into account is the potential for an autocratic or oligarchic leader(s) to seize control of the state under the pretense of seeking to fulfill the interests of the general population. Karl Marx’s vision of the world, although it has an idealistic view of human nature, that is, that the average person seeks the betterment of a general population, is pure fantasy. Marx believed that the state if ruled by a communist form of government, would serve the interests of the working class. What he failed to predict was the imposition of communist rule in particular nations such as the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did involve central planning that Karl Marx believed the state should pursue in managing the economy, but the interests of the peasantry and the general population. As you may remember, after the ascendancy of Joseph Stalin to the premiership of the Soviet Union, the opposition of dissidents was suppressed, especially farmers who opposed the collectivist policies imposed by the Soviet Union government. Furthermore, the central government of the Soviet Union restricted civil rights and liberties. Labor Unions were also banned, with the only existing labor unions being controlled by the State. In other words, the state was weaponized against the interests and well-being of the general population. While the ideal version of communism involves the state as an instrument to ensure equality among the general population and the fulfillment of the general population’s interests, the power ceded to the state can be used for nefarious purposes. This view is in line with Friedrich Hayek’s argument against central planning in that the practice can involve the imposition of policies and control by a minority of individuals over the majority of a population. While the idea of communism is quite beautiful, the power communism invests in the state can assist tyrannical leaders in seizing control of the state under the pretense of pursuing a communist form of government. Perhaps too much of something is bad, power included. On the other end of things, Peter Kropotkin believes that society should adopt anarchy communism. He believed that the elimination of state, and the implementaiton of communism would safeguard int the state must be annihilated in order to prioritize the common interests of a society and maintain liberty. He sums up his position in the following quote, “With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible. Without it, it necessarily becomes slavery and cannot exist.” (Kroptkin, 1900). However, Kropotkin fails to remember that

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help