While Yankton residents face the deceptive machinations of a holy crusader who opposes opt-outs to forward his divine goal of getting "God's children out of Pharaoh's schools," Yankton reporter Nathan Johnson reads a study of government safety nets and the general welfare and makes this audacious statement:
Studies like this show that government can play a liberating role in the day-to-day lives of its citizens [Nathan Johnson, "Researcher Finds That Social Safety Net Contributes to Life Satisfaction," An Inland Voyage, 2011.05.09].
The Baylor University study of fifteen industrialized nations found that government intervention in the economy may equal or beat marriage in boosting citizen satisfaction.
"In many cases, less government intervention can allow for a more efficient economy, but greater economic efficiency doesn't necessarily translate into greater contentment with one's life," [study author and political science professor Patrick] Flavin said. "If you get sick and can't work or lose your job and there are few social protections in place, you're more likely to be anxious and less satisfied."
...Flavin said the research is focused only on the link between government intervention and life satisfaction and not whether it achieves economic growth or such goals as reducing poverty or violent crime. But "to the extent that it is a primary task of democratic governments to secure the well-being of their citizens, studying what government activities make citizens happier helps inform the "˜politics vs. markets' debate,'" he said ["Life Satisfaction and Government Intervention Go Hand in Hand, Baylor Researcher Finds," Baylor University News, 2011.05.05].
I can hear an argument coming that "satisfaction" refers to security, not liberty. After all, Johnson and Flavin refer to the government safety net, not the liberty net. (Liberty Net: that's Gordon Howie's fake blogroll, right?)
But when people like Paul Dorr and Bob Ellis cry Tyranny! over public education and demand that we get government out of everything but women's uteri, I hear them confusing liberty with the state of nature. Without government, you are as free as your wits and muscle and ruthlessness allow you to be. If you're the strongest gorilla in the jungle, you can eat whatever bananas and mate with whatever hot furry babes you wish. But the moment you're laid up with gorilla gout, or the moment a bigger, meaner gorilla moves in, your treasured freedom disappears.
Government isn't about freedom; it's about liberty. Liberty guarantees certain rights. Government (which, when done right, is we!) doesn't let you eat every banana in sight, but it makes your personal banana stash a lot more secure than it is in the state of nature. When something bad happens, government makes sure you still get a few bananas until you're back on your feet. Government provides a level of security that you can't get in the state of nature. When you have that security, you aren't wasting your time guarding and fretting about your banana stash all day. You are liberated to spend time building a treehouse, playing with the kids, and seeking venture capital for a better banana-picking machine.
A government safety net is not tyranny. It is the antidote to the tyranny of big gorillas in the state of nature.