Case for government

By Alex Gratzek – Originally published in The Korea Times

In the past and even today, some have been making the argument for smaller government along the lines of libertarianism.

This may have been fine in centuries past, however, in the world today, the case for a more robust government is stronger than for an administration that is retreating from involvement in its citizens’ lives. At least it appears so to this writer judging from a quick glance at Korean and American society.

In Korea, the need for government is increasing as traditional Confucianism fades away. In the past, the family could be expected to provide a safety net for elder members of the community. In recent years, this understanding between the generations has been faltering.

Today’s parents, squeezed between paying for their children’s education (private academies) and ever more expensive housing, are not in the position to provide their parents with money or a home to stay in, as their parents provided for their own before them.

That is not to say that no children care for their parents, but to point out that it is happening with less frequency and with greater hardship than in previous generations.

According to an article written by Kim Jae-won in the Nikkei Asian Review, the average pensioner in Korea receives 250,000 ($206) won a month; while nearly half of South Koreans over 65 live in poverty. It is unfathomable to me that such a small pension could be sufficient to live on, let alone in a comfortable manner.

What entity has the ability to care for the elderly? Companies are shirking from providing adequate pensions while families are being squeezed by the costs of modern living. Only governments have the power and authority to step up to the plate. It is especially galling that the generation which built Korea into an economic powerhouse is now struggling to survive on the margins of society.

In the U.S., there has always been a strong libertarian streak focusing on personal responsibility and minimal government. This may have been acceptable during the nation’s early days when communities were small and isolated while local businesses served the community within which they were located. Personal relationships and reputations served as a check on any chicanery or gross violations in the standards of decency.

Nowadays, corporations are behemoths with supply chains spanning the globe, subsidiary corporations and opaque structures.

The sheer size of these entities, when coupled with their profits allows them to buy the best lawyers, curry influence in countries across the globe, and identify ways to keep individuals continually using their products. It means that people cannot easily fight against corporations on an equal footing.

For example, how many times a day do you check your smartphone or tablet? Too many to count I would imagine. App developers and phone makers intentionally use bright colors and other psychological tricks to keep users continually using their services. You may say, well that may be so but it’s largely harmless so what’s the issue?

Take a look at cigarettes. Decades ago, cigarette corporations were able to muddy the waters concerning the health hazards of cigarette smoking by financing studies favorable to their cause. It took decades to overcome this obfuscation on their part with the resultant untold numbers of dead and sick.

Today, the same battle is being played out with sugary drinks. Despite knowing they are unhealthy and should be consumed in very limited amounts, companies like Coca Cola and other manufacturers frame the debate not over whether sugary drinks are healthy, but as a matter of personal choice. Who is the government to dictate what people can and can’t drink?

In this light, you would be hard pressed to find a person in favor of such governmental powers but the thing to remain focused on is the individual consumer versus the corporation. Sure, if it’s an even playing field then the consumer should be free to do whatever they wish. However, the playing field is never level between consumer and corporation.

Going back to cigarettes, in the days of my youth, cartoon mascots were used to hawk cigarettes to the adolescents of the day. Kids and cartoons going together, who would of thought it? Today, there has been a push to package all cigarettes in uniform boxes with no brand names or other markings.

This would level the playing field for consumers by undercutting some of the psychological tricks played by the cigarette companies, but the movement has largely been beaten back because of ardent opposition from the companies whose bottom lines would suffer.

In the past, a hands-off libertarian approach to government may have proved workable. The family unit was stronger allowing for the aged and infirm to be taken care of while any shady local business would quickly lose the trust of the surrounding community and go out of business.

The problem is that in today’s world, the family unit has weakened as corporate power has grown, but governments have yet to stand up to corporations and put some limits on their excesses.

The issue with corporations is that their only focus is on selling their goods and services to consumers by any means necessary. Today, there is a need for a stronger larger government to deal with the complexities of modern living more than ever before.