when politician He declared that he was “ready to rule,” but what does he mean by “rule”? Oxford English Dictionary The verb “to govern” is said to have originated from French and first appeared in English in the 14th century. In intransitive form, it meant “to direct or control the actions and affairs of a person or place.”English:OED (Foreign Language)Accessed on July 2, 2024).
What we can call innocent The concept of government is seen as a way to please everyone and make everyone happier. However, it is not clear how individuals with different preferences, values, and circumstances can be made happier by government decisions and policies. Furthermore, how are rulers incentivized to be benevolent angels? What we know from history shows the opposite.
More realistic Majority rule The concept of governance focuses on satisfying the majority of the members of society, perhaps the group of voters whose support the rulers most need. Majoritarian democracy means that the majority is largely unconstrained by the constitution. If you are in the minority, you are more likely to be exploited by the majority, that is, you will pay for the benefits and privileges that the majority receives (either through money, discrimination, or other means). Note that undemocratic governments often have to respond to the demands of the majority or a substantial majority. In a democracy, however, minority citizens are more likely to be in the future majority and have a turn to exploit others.
The concept of majority rule is questionable from both an economic and a moral standpoint. From a moral standpoint, some individuals may be locked in a permanent minority, never having a turn to rule and exploit others. From an economic standpoint, the alternating or cyclical existence between exploiter and exploited may be averaged out to net gain, but the average is calculated based on a lower level of wealth. This is because the ruling majority constantly interferes with free exchange and free social interaction (the essence of exploitation), thereby reducing the general level of wealth.
A more sophisticated conception of governance might be that of “public goods” or “contractual.” Governing means directing a subset of social problems to ensure the production of public goods (or services) that everyone wants but cannot be procured at an “efficient” level by voluntary cooperation.
We can see the idea of a libertarian version of the “social contract” as an extension of the public interest approach. Governance is the directing or guiding of social affairs by general rules unanimously agreed upon by its members. Unanimous agreement on a set of rules (a “constitution”) means that each member of society benefits net, even if particular political decisions made under the rules may sometimes be against his or her own interests. No one can be exploited on an ongoing basis. We find this idea most fully developed in the work of James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, and the related school of constitutional political economy (especially James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, The Calculation of Consent, 1962; Geoffrey Brennan and James Buchanan, Reason for the rule1985). Many liberal thinkers, perhaps most, from Adam Smith to Friedrich Hayek, can be understood as endorsing the related but less formal theory that all government action must respect rules and institutions that are broadly agreed upon (where “broadly” means much more than 50%+1).
However attractive the formal or informal contractual approach, is it realistic to think that obedience to government can actually be in everyone’s interest? For Anthony de Jasay, the answer is no. Every coercive act of government, and even every general rule or set of rules that is supposedly unanimous, is bound to benefit some citizens and harm others. There is no way to decide that the benefits to some citizens outweigh the costs to others except through the arbitrariness of political authority (see especially de Jasay, 1985). situation) To govern is nothing but to favor some at the expense of others: to take money from some and transfer it to others, or to grant some privileges (e.g., tariffs to protect some producers from foreign competitors) at the expense of others (consumers paying higher prices). Government can produce public goods at levels that would otherwise be unattainable, but then it becomes a place where free riders get free goods at the expense of other taxpayers (de Jasay’s Social contract, free riding1992).
De Jasai’s theory is consistent with current observations in the democratic world: a significant portion of the population dislikes democratic rulers, and the more they rule to address the public’s discontent, the worse it becomes. Many aspects of his theory are controversial, but I do not think the challenge it poses is convincingly addressed.
******************************
I asked ChatGPT, “When political leaders say they govern, what do they mean by ‘govern’ or ‘govern’?” In short, he answered that the purpose of a ruler is to “ensure the stability, security, and well-being of society.” However, he acknowledged that “governance requires balancing various interests and making difficult decisions.” In other words, favoring some while harming others. Then I instructed “him,” “create an image that illustrates the concept of governance I just described.” The image he produced was as confusing as his concept of democracy.
This is the first image of GPT after being asked to explain what is meant by governance when political leaders say they govern.
