- Remain neutral: A policymaker can conclude that involvement in an issue would exceed governmental authority, would limit freedoms in uncalled for ways, or that the government has no compelling interest in being involved.
- Create or permit options: The government remains officialy neutral, while opening up a range of options which citizens may elect to take.
- Offer incentives or disincentives: The government can offer public commendation or finanical awards and taxbreaks, as well as public shame or financial penalities.
- Regulate access or exit: The government can choose to control who has access to certain products or benefits, as well as who is exempted from certain responsibilities.
- Mandate or prohibit: This is the one we tend to think of first when we consider policymaking decisions, but as Gushee points out, since these actions always limit personal freedom in some manner, they are and should be the decisions most difficult to enact.
What I like about this list is its political realism. A government legislator often has to accept less than fully mandating or prohibting certain behaviors.
To understand this better, I will see if I can apply these bullets to an example. Say the question is about government involvement in the field of education.
ReplyDelete* Remain neutral; policymaker decides that education is outside of the government authority
* Create or permit options: Government opens a range of options? Government operates one school that is supported by students' tuition money, a school that competes with other non-government providers of education?
* Offer incentives..: Government gives tax breaks to people who can show that they sent their kids to (any) school, or threatens to fine the parents who did not? (coercion is necessary in this option)
* Regulate access: Government mandates that only kids from a certain zip code attend a school being operated in that zip code. (coercion is necessary in this option)
* Mandate or prohibit: government prohibits operation of non-government schools, or opting out of education-funding taxes. (coercion is necessary)
Is that about right? If so, then options 3, 4, and 5 all require coercion and they all 'limit freedom in some manner'; as such, they would have to be based on deep, argued conviction that education falls in the proper realm of government authority (which, of course, it very well may do).
I suspect you're right about the way #3-5 would have to be reasoned, though I suppose the pragmatist might simply argue that since things already work this way, how can one work wihtin the system to promote at least "the lesser of two evils," accepting that in an ideal world #-5 would be left to local polities and communities, but since they aren't, its better to try to shape the system in sme positive way. Is that permissible in your view?
ReplyDeleteOk, here's another question about coercion: Is all government coercion equal?