What Does Governance Mean?

When a politician says he is “ready to rule,” what does he mean when he says “rule”? I Oxford English Dictionary tells us that the verb “to rule” came from a French word and first appeared in English in the 14th century. In its unchanging form, it meant “to direct or control the actions and affairs of people or place” (The OEDaccessed July 2, 2024).

What we can call it naive The idea of ​​ruling sees it as a way to please everyone, to make everyone happy. But it is not clear how people with different preferences, values, and circumstances can be made happier with government decisions and policies. Furthermore, how are rulers encouraged to be benevolent angels? What we know from history shows the opposite.

Which is even more true a great scholar the idea of ​​governance is focused on satisfying the majority of the members of society, probably the group of voters whose support the rulers need most. Greater democracy means that the majority is not restricted by the constitution. If you are a minority, there is a good chance that you will be exploited by the majority, that is, you will pay (in money, discrimination, or otherwise) for the benefits and privileges that the majority provides. Note that non-democratic governments often have to respond to the demands of the majority or significant majority. However, in a democracy, the younger citizen has a better chance of becoming part of the future majority and has a chance to exploit others.

The idea of ​​governing officials is questionable from an economic and moral point of view. From a moral point of view, some people may stick to a permanent small group and never have their chance to dominate and exploit others. From an economic point of view, being otherwise or in a cycle between the exploiters and the exploited may have a measure of overall profit, but the measure is calculated at a lower level of wealth. The reason is that the constant interference of the ruling majority with free trade and free social intercourse in general (which exploitation is all about) lowers the general level of wealth.

A more advanced view of governance can be labeled “public good” or “contractual duty.” Governance then means directing a subset of social affairs to ensure the production of public goods (or services), goods that everyone wants but that cannot be purchased at an “efficient” level through voluntary cooperation.

We may consider the concept of the “social contract” in its liberal version as an extension of the social good practice. Governance is like directing or directing the affairs of society according to the general rules that its members unanimously agree on. The unanimous agreement of a set of rules (“constitution”) implies that each member of the society receives the maximum benefit, even if certain political decisions under the rules may sometimes conflict with their interests. No one can be bullied all the time. We are indebted to James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, and the constitutionalist school of political economy (see especially James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, The Calculus of Consent, 1962; and Geoffrey Brennan and James Buchanan, The Reason for the Laws, 1985). Many, perhaps most, liberal thinkers, from Adam Smith to Friedrich Hayek, can be understood as supporting a related but informal theory in which any government action must respect laws and institutions that meet a broad agreement (where “broad” means more than that. 50%+1).

No matter how good the formal or informal contractor approach is, is it reasonable to think that submission to the government would be in everyone’s best interests? For Anthony de Jasay, the answer is no. Any coercive act of government or any common law or set of laws that is said to be consensual must benefit some citizens and harm others. There is no other way than the arbitrariness of political authorities to decide that the benefits of some are higher than the costs borne by others (see especially de Jasay’s 1985 The state). Monopoly means nothing more than benefiting some to the detriment of others—taking money from some to transfer to others, or giving rights to some (taxes to protect some producers against foreign competitors, for example) at the expense of others (consumers). pay higher prices). The government may produce public goods at an unattainable level, but then it becomes a place where free riders get goods for free at the expense of other taxpayers (see de Jasay’s. Social Contract, Free Ride1992).

De Jasay’s theory is consistent with what is now observed in the democratic world: a large part of the population hates their democratic rulers, and more administration to solve public discontent only exacerbates that. Although many aspects of his theory are debatable, I do not think that the challenges it raises have been met convincingly.

******************************

I asked ChatGPT, “What does it mean to ‘rule’ or ‘govern’, as we say political leaders rule?” Summarizing, he replied that the purpose of rulers is “to ensure the stability, security, and well-being of their society.” But he admitted that “governance requires balancing various interests, making difficult decisions.” In other words, hurting others in order to love others. Then I instructed “him”: “Make a picture that shows the concept of rule that you just explained.” The image he has released is confused with how he thinks about democracy.