Government as Captain or Referee?

[Michael]

The issue is, to use a sporting metaphor, whether in the game of life the government shall captain the national team or shall act as referee.

Article: It Started with Plato (http://mises.org/story/3620)

This is an interesting article on an important topic near and dear to my heart. That is to say, what is the proper role of government? I think the analogy quoted above and taken from the article is an excellent way to frame the debate.

[Non Sequitur]

Article: It Started with Plato (http://mises.org/story/3620)

This is an interesting article on an important topic near and dear to my heart. That is to say, what is the proper role of government? I think the analogy quoted above and taken from the article is an excellent way to frame the debate.

I'm definitely in the referee camp, but that is because I am very suspicious of the institution of government as a whole.

[Daktoria]

Some Greek or Roman dude said it first, I don't remember, but in order for culturally neutral policy to be implemented, some citizens are going to have to be isolated from the rest of society and shielded from interaction with the public in all forms to prevent corruption or bias in any way.

Mind that I don't believe that this would result in total neutrality because personality bias would still take effect (either innately or because of the unavoidable sequence of experiences that comes from limited lifetimes and only living in one place at a time).

However, a government of shielded "politicians" (if I may) would be the most neutral referee possible even though all referees are biased towards certain rules and interpretations one way or another.

There is always a higher game, so it's impossible to be a referee in one without being a player (nevermind a captain) in others.

[dilettante]

Article: It Started with Plato (http://mises.org/story/3620)

This is an interesting article on an important topic near and dear to my heart. That is to say, what is the proper role of government? I think the analogy quoted above and taken from the article is an excellent way to frame the debate.

I think I'd also lean toward preferring the government act as 'referee' (at least on the domestic field) rather than 'captain'.

Some Greek or Roman dude said it first, I don't remember, but in order for culturally neutral policy to be implemented, some citizens are going to have to be isolated from the rest of society and shielded from interaction with the public in all forms to prevent corruption or bias in any way.

Mind that I don't believe that this would result in total neutrality because personality bias would still take effect (either innately or because of the unavoidable sequence of experiences that comes from limited lifetimes and only living in one place at a time).

However, a government of shielded "politicians" (if I may) would be the most neutral referee possible even though all referees are biased towards certain rules and interpretations one way or another.
...

Wouldn't a set of politicians "shielded" from society also be remarkably ignorant as to what that society was like when it came time for them to make decisions? I'm not sure that kind of neutrality would be beneficial.

[Daktoria]

Yea, they would be ignorant, and that's the problem. Even if their shield was unbiased, their personalities would come out in their political proscriptions. Now matter how much governments try to be referees, they always come out as players even when they're the most well intentioned.

Hence, the real question is about how much government should be involved at all, and the answer to that is as little as possible.

[Donkey]

Yea, they would be ignorant, and that's the problem. Even if their shield was unbiased, their personalities would come out in their political proscriptions. Now matter how much governments try to be referees, they always come out as players even when they're the most well intentioned.

Hence, the real question is about how much government should be involved at all, and the answer to that is as little as possible.
Pretty meaningless. Government involvement, in terms of possibility ranges from no government at all, to absolute authoritarianism. Perhaps if you were to say "as little as necessary," though that would be equally meaningless, exchanging essentially unlimited possibility for essentially unlimited subjectivism.

[Michael]

Some Greek or Roman dude said it first, I don't remember, but in order for culturally neutral policy to be implemented, some citizens are going to have to be isolated from the rest of society and shielded from interaction with the public in all forms to prevent corruption or bias in any way.
I'd be very interested to know to which Greek or Roman dude said this because the concept is a modern one and Greek and Roman thinking was always 'pre-modern'.

The concept of cultural neutrality just isn't comprehensible to the classical Roman or Greek world-view.

As for your supposition, I think only Plato makes a reference to the isolation of the elites - and I believe it is the neoplatonists that built up the idea of rule by an isolated elite class.

It is to be noted that the neoplatonists were EXTREMELY influential in the early Christian Church history.

However, a government of shielded "politicians" (if I may) would be the most neutral referee possible even though all referees are biased towards certain rules and interpretations one way or another.
I hold that it is categorically impossible for humans to exist without bias. Humans are subjective by definition. Only Gods can be objective.

There is always a higher game, so it's impossible to be a referee in one without being a player (nevermind a captain) in others.
That's a good point.

Indeed, in our modern world, often as not, the role of referee is that of a player/team-captain for all intents and purposes. The UN is a good example of this.

[Zarquon]

I'd prefer referee, but given contemporary challenges, I'd say captain.

[Michael]

I'd prefer referee, but given contemporary challenges, I'd say captain.

The problem with the "captain" model is that the captain tends to favor only one part of the body politic as 'the team'.

US foreign policy for example, the US Government certainly acts like a 'captain', but the 'US team' consists only of the military-industrial complex. The interests of average US citizens are not considered relevant to that team or to that captaincy.

This means that US citizens themselves are dependent upon the 'referee' actions of a higher body (i.e. UN) to protect their interests against the actions of their own Government team captain.

And that is to say, the reason we need referees is because of all these team captains seeking to maximize their advantages over others. If we didn't have so many team captains seeking to "win", we probably wouldn't need so many referees trying to stop them from cheating.