Political arguments and their rhetorical foundations

Government Intervention and Public Policy

The Origin of Government Paternalism

Throughout recorded human history, government authorities have exerted control over the affairs of citizens (Hill, 2009). Until the relatively recent past, the vast majority of all national government authorities wielded their power independent of popular opinion and preference. In fact, the Colonists who embarked from Britain to explore the New World that eventually became the United States left Britain precisely because the Royal Crown required allegiance to the Anglican Church of England.

More generally, national governments were almost always autocracies or oligarchies in which government policies were primarily intended to further the interests of royal families or small segments of the population and imposed on the rest of the population by the threat of punishment (Hill, 2009). In the modern era, democratic governments still exercise authority in ways that are paternalistic, especially with regard to decisions and policies that affect the nation as a whole. In principle, elected U.S. government officials serve only by the will of the people who elect them; however, as a practical matter, even American government authorities exercise tremendous control over issues that affect the lives of individual citizens.

The Issue of Regulation of Commerce and Trade

In the realm of commerce and trade regulation, the U.S. government authorities exercise control to protect jobs, to establish minimum wages, to ensure continuity of production in industries that are vital to the nation, to protect consumers' safety, health, and welfare, to shield domestic business and commercial interests against unfair international competition, and to exert national influence internationally as a means of furthering American foreign policy objectives and democratic principles worldwide (Hill, 2009). Certainly, there is an element of government paternalism at issue, notwithstanding the democratic nature of American society, simply because individual citizens do not have any direct control over many of these decisions. There is no doubt that government trade regulation and related policy decisions affect the lives of individual citizens in ways that may appear excessive when viewed from the bottom up.

The Justification of Government Commerce and Trade Regulation

When viewed from the micro level, it is easy to understand why government regulation and exercise of authority over jobs, wages, industry practices, and the importation and exportation of goods and services might seem overly paternalistic. However, when compared to the alternative, it becomes very clear why such regulation is necessary, or at least why it is, by far, the lesser of two evils.

Without government regulation in these areas, the individual citizen would be at the mercy of decisions made by non-government entities acting purely out of their own self-interests. Among other things, wages would remain as low as could be maintained by the demand for jobs; essential industries and services would be susceptible to monopolization for commercial profit at the expense of the general public; prices would be inflated artificially by collusion and price-fixing; and domestic production would be threatened by cheaper foreign products and labor (Hill, 2009). In principle, the use of government authority to influence foreign affairs through trade policy is justified for the same reasons. However, in practice, there are significant potential issues, such as those arising in the context of exactly what commercial interests (or, more specifically, the commercial interests of whom) those policies reflect.