James Madison Speaks on the Government’s Role in Informing Decisions

“It’s somewhat embarrassing to admit that I believed that we had provided for every contingency when writing the Constitution.  Yet I freely admit that in my wildest imaginings I never foresaw the importance, proliferation, and accessibility of information in our society.  Information brings with it two issues with which we need concern ourselves.  The first is that of the government to assure citizens the best possible bases for making decisions.  The second is assurance of the privacy of individuals.

“A principle that we, the Founding fathers, all agree on is that this Country is based on freedom to make decisions that do not harm others.  We never meant that such decisions would not impact others; in fact every decision increasingly impacts others due to how society has become more connected over time.  We meant that the decisions made by citizens or States should be allowed unless they materially harm other citizens or States beyond reason.  I would like to discuss the responsibility of individuals and States to make informed and transparent decisions – and to take responsibility for those decisions. 

For some reason, individuals and States have become accepting of the Federal government making decisions for them.  The ability of a free society to remain free is dependent on the citizens refusing to accept that the government makes any decisions that they are capable of making independently.  In fact that is the very definition of freedom.  Closely related to this concept is the concept of taking personal responsibility for the consequences of one’s words and actions.  For some reason US citizens often seem to be looking for someone to blame when things do not go as planned.  Perhaps this is related to the litigious nature of today's society but that is discussed in another chapter.  In any case, personal responsibility and personal freedom, cornerstones of the American society we envisioned, have both eroded over time.

We lived in times that were in some ways far simpler than today.  We had fewer choices to make about what to do, where to live, what to buy, where to go for entertainment, with whom to interact, how to achieve objectives, what investments to make, where to shop, which doctor to use, when to retire, etc.  On the other hand, our choices could often have much more serious consequences, like survival.  We became tight knit communities that advised and helped each other.  People made decisions using the best advice available at the time and place.  Today information exists about virtually any topic of interest.  The internet provides access to information for almost every citizen.  The issues are sorting good information from bad, actually making the effort to get the information before making a decision, and accepting the consequences of our and our neighbors’ decisions.  While the government should not make most decisions for us, it could be its duty to provide guidelines and quality information that aids our decision making.

For example, if an individual chooses to not invest in a way that provides at least a survival level retirement in his/her future, should the government have any responsibility to support that person in retirement?  And does the government have the right to force a person to make investments for retirement so that they can live in an acceptable manner?  I say no to both.  The government does not have any responsibility to assure a comfortable living for its citizens either during their productive years or after retirement.  It is the citizens’ right and duty to provide for themselves. 

So what about the concept of “social justice”?  This is a valid concept, yet it is an individually defined concept – not one appropriately defined by the government.  Each individual has different ideas about what is right and just in this respect.  Some take the position that all should share the wealth equally, others believe ‘to each his own’. Some believe the indigent should be provided for while others believe they should be offered work, and still others believe they should be left to fend for themselves in a survival-of-the-fittest sort of way.  Some believe that everyone should have equal access to services like health care while others believe that a person should get whatever they can afford.  Some believe in inheritance while others believe that a person should only have what they earn themselves.  All of these (and many more) positions are individual preference and the government should not advocate any particular position because it decreases personal freedom unnecessarily.

How then should the Federal government play in the issues of social justice?  Without any impact on personal freedom the government could provide information on agencies and companies providing such services to people.  This information could be used by citizens to make informed decisions about where they could voluntarily donate money, goods, or services to best achieve their desired benefits.  If no such non-government agencies exist, the government could establish such an agency that took voluntary contributions.  The important distinction is that no one is forced to contribute to any “social justice” concept that they don’t believe in and there is information available for all to see the impact of their individual decisions.  It is not the government’s role to force citizens to adopt any particular belief system, but it is a valid function of our government to provide the best available unbiased assessment of the alternatives available.

Few citizens would turn down requests for help from another citizen if they believed that they had good information about the need and the recipient was known to be deserving.  Two-hundred years ago we knew our neighbors well enough to have a pretty good idea about such things.  Today the sense of community and neighborhood has eroded enough that these things are largely unknown.  The government can vet and provide data about individuals, at their request, that could be used for others to make informed decisions about helping the individual in need.  Some would argue that there would be a social stigma on the needy individual that would arise from this approach.  I agree and believe this to be a good thing because it increases the peer pressure that helps ensure that citizens make every effort to assure they have taken every possible step before seeking such help.