Obama's "Question": Does Government Work?

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works..."

-Barack Obama

At first this question irritated me, but as I thought about it I realized this a very good question.  However the problem is that Barack did no intend on answering it. He did not bother to explain the nature of government and exactly what makes it work. If he is asserting that some government programs "work" and others do not, he did not make any distinction between what "works" and what doesn't work. He simply goes on to list problems.

"...whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good."

If you ask a "question" but simply assume the answer, then you have not asked a question at all.

Perhaps what Mr. Obama intended to say is "Government works, and you should accept it as a given".

Mr. Obama has posed and evaded the most essential question of our time "Does government work?" Or to put it more clearly "Does a monopoly on physical violence solve problems?"

After the blood bath of the 20th century where the largest governments on earth have ever existed this can no longer be a question that can reasonably evaded. We can no longer afford to intellectualize midstream. The premises of government must be examined rather then accepted due to cultural default.

If Mr. Obama did intend on truly answering this question there are three criteria he would have to meet and satisfy.

1. What is human nature?
2. What is the nature of government?  and
3. What is the relationship between the two of them?

But these questions were not asked, but rather assumed

1. Human nature: Evil/Self-destructive
2. Government: Good
3. The Relationship: Healthy

A very fundamental question must be put forward to this logic.

If human nature is self-destructive, how can government solve that problem considering that the government is made of human beings?

If human interests are self-destructive or evil, they very last thing that we want is a government.

The government can never solve the problem of evil and self-destructive behavior because the government consists of people its self. To use this logic is to simply apply principles of human nature inconsistently.

Perhaps the people in government are good but the people outside of it are bad? You can claim that rocks fall and clouds float, however there is a fundamentally different nature to two things. Where as human nature is fundamentally the same. There must be some explanation for this problem. It cannot simply be assumed.

Thus the essential problem of government and why it doesn't work is that government's necessity is based on the problems of human nature, but these problems also apply to the government. Thus the problems of human nature have simply been elevated with the existence of government, and it is not a valid solution to problems.