What must the government not do ?
Answers
This is a fundamental question for any politician. Few answer it. They give particular answers to particular such questions, of course. They say what they think the government should do about the provision of healthcare, about education, about housing and so on and on. But they rarely give a general answer. They state no principles by which we could judge whether the government should or should not be involved in something.
This is a fundamental question for any politician. Few answer it. They give particular answers to particular such questions, of course. They say what they think the government should do about the provision of healthcare, about education, about housing and so on and on. But they rarely give a general answer. They state no principles by which we could judge whether the government should or should not be involved in something.Theresa May is a welcome exception. In a speech at the Conservative Party conference last autumn, she said that “the state exists to provide what individual people, communities and markets cannot”.
This is a fundamental question for any politician. Few answer it. They give particular answers to particular such questions, of course. They say what they think the government should do about the provision of healthcare, about education, about housing and so on and on. But they rarely give a general answer. They state no principles by which we could judge whether the government should or should not be involved in something.Theresa May is a welcome exception. In a speech at the Conservative Party conference last autumn, she said that “the state exists to provide what individual people, communities and markets cannot”.This principle will strike few people as contentious. But that is only because, like Mrs May, many forget something important about “the state”: namely, that it is not a special kind of agent. The state can act only through the people who make it up. When the state provides you with healthcare, it is really doctors, nurses, cleaners and other “individual people” who provide it.
This is a fundamental question for any politician. Few answer it. They give particular answers to particular such questions, of course. They say what they think the government should do about the provision of healthcare, about education, about housing and so on and on. But they rarely give a general answer. They state no principles by which we could judge whether the government should or should not be involved in something.Theresa May is a welcome exception. In a speech at the Conservative Party conference last autumn, she said that “the state exists to provide what individual people, communities and markets cannot”.This principle will strike few people as contentious. But that is only because, like Mrs May, many forget something important about “the state”: namely, that it is not a special kind of agent. The state can act only through the people who make it up. When the state provides you with healthcare, it is really doctors, nurses, cleaners and other “individual people” who provide it.If people cannot provide something, the state cannot provide it. There is nothing beyond the people to do the providing. So Mrs May’s principle seems to leave the state with nothing to do.
This is a fundamental question for any politician. Few answer it. They give particular answers to particular such questions, of course. They say what they think the government should do about the provision of healthcare, about education, about housing and so on and on. But they rarely give a general answer. They state no principles by which we could judge whether the government should or should not be involved in something.Theresa May is a welcome exception. In a speech at the Conservative Party conference last autumn, she said that “the state exists to provide what individual people, communities and markets cannot”.This principle will strike few people as contentious. But that is only because, like Mrs May, many forget something important about “the state”: namely, that it is not a special kind of agent. The state can act only through the people who make it up. When the state provides you with healthcare, it is really doctors, nurses, cleaners and other “individual people” who provide it.If people cannot provide something, the state cannot provide it. There is nothing beyond the people to do the providing. So Mrs May’s principle seems to leave the state with nothing to do.But there is a difference between state people and non-state people, which means “the state” can indeed do what would otherwise be undoable. State people are allowed to use coercion.