Ethics, Morality and Government
Are government monopolies ethical or moral institutions?
I admit to having used the terms ‘ethical’ and ‘moral’ somewhat interchangeably because I had never taken the time to understand the difference. After reading this https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals, I decided to apply my newfound understanding of these words to government labour.
Public Sector Labour Unions
One of my perennial pet peeves has been the excessive powers and privileges that public sector labour unions enjoy both politically and operationally within virtually every government workplace. These organizations operate a labour monopoly within our public institutions. Over 75% of public sector employees are required to be a union member as a condition of employment. There is No Free Choice - no one is allowed to refuse this condition if he or she wishes to be employed in public service.
Politically, unions are also known to align with either the NDP or Liberal parties (both are Autocratic Socialist parties) so as to leverage their working relationships with senior public officers and politicians to their mutual advantage. Union leaders are able to exploit those relationships for financial and/or regulatory gains which accrue to the union executives and members at the expense of everyone else. This exploitation is unfair to every other citizen who does not benefit directly from these “special interest group” privileges.
The question about the ethics and morality of these arrangements is worth considering.
The ethics of public sector unions
As stated in the linked article, “Ethics are external standards that are provided by institutions, groups, or culture to which an individual belongs.” Public sector unions receive the authority to impose their Marxist labour agendas on government workplaces by legislation. These “external standards” were enacted many decades ago as Acts of Parliament by past Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs) in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. These pro-union labour laws came into existence as the direct result of lobbying by organized labour groups. The early history of the union movement is famous for its workplace strike actions in which its participants often became violent and destroyed private property. The Rand Formula became law in 1946 following many violent strikes over pay and working conditions.
“The Rand Formula is a feature of Canadian labour law requiring workers covered by collective bargaining contracts to pay union dues — whether or not those workers are union members. The Formula was a victory for unions struggling for recognition and security after the Second World War, and became a standard part of labour contracts, and union power, in the decades that followed.“ Source: The Canadian Encyclopedia.
Questions to consider:
Back in 1946, did all of the MPPs unanimously agree to pass the Rand Formula or did the bill pass with only a slim majority? It is certainly unlikely that the decision was unanimous and did not represent the “will of the people” that those MPPs represented. I don’t doubt that many individual citizens would have opposed it.
The labour conditions that led to the Rand Formula decision in 1946 were mainly related to conditions pertaining to manufacturing jobs of that era and can in no way be compared to the excellent public sector labour conditions of 2022. Wages, benefits, job security and working conditions are generally more-than-acceptable to government employees today and often exceed those of private sector jobs. Given this reality, would the majority of today’s citizens vote in favour of legislation like the Rand Formula for government jobs? Unfortunately, no one will know the answer for sure unless the question is put to a public referendum. In any case, I doubt that it would pass.
Are public sector unions “ethical”? Yes must be the answer because legislation like the Rand Formula has been successfully added to Ontario’s labour laws and has never been repealed. As long as the force of legislation exists, the unions are free to act ‘ethically’, but what about ‘morally’?
The Morality of public sector labour unions
Again, from the linked article: “Morals are also influenced by culture or society, but they are personal principles created and upheld by individuals themselves.” Morals are often derived from religious teachings such as “Thou shalt not steal” from the Ten Commandments. Community standards also play a big role in shaping an acceptable code of conduct to which all citizens are expected to conform. ‘No littering’ is an example of such an expectation in neighbourhoods where citizens take pride in property ownership; the residents promote a clean neighbourhood by fostering a community culture based on social expectations.
The consequences for stealing could be extreme in past societies. Punishments varied greatly over time and according each unique community’s expectations. Ancient Egypt, for example, dealt with thieves using corporal punishment such as mutilation, flogging, penal servitude or death by staking. A common punishment for theft in primitive cultures was to cut off the arm or fingers of the thief. These actions were considered appropriate by community members and represented the ‘morality’ of those cultures.
Morality Morphed into Ethics, codified and enforced by public institutions
Inevitably, as populations grew and community norms became more complex, the powers of leaders expanded to establish centralized institutions of authority . The local civic and religious leaders defined the policies, procedures and rules that they promised would address the complexity in a predictable, reliable and presumably ‘fair’ manner.
The subsequent creation and enforcement of legislation for every form of crime, including theft, also led to a continual expansion of the powers of the state. “In political philosophy, a monopoly on violence or monopoly on the legal use of force is the property of a polity that is the only entity in its jurisdiction to legitimately use force, and thus the supreme authority of that area.” - Wikipedia
What does the amount of government power have to do with morality? The answer has to do with the extent to which governments are able to exercise power over our citizens and under what circumstances. For example, when legislated authority exists to “tax the rich” so as to distribute the proceeds to others, this can be considered a form of theft in some circles. This view is especially justified when one considers the fact that 88% of taxes collected in Ontario are used to pay the salaries and benefits of “public servants”. Two questions arise: “Who is servicing who?”; and “Is this moral given the alleged purpose of the ‘public sector’ to serve “the public good?”
Libertarians have long argued that taxation is legalized theft. While taxation may be ethical, is it moral? Does legislation render the “Thou shalt not steal” edict meaningless? In fact, does the entire legislative apparatus by which governments derive their authority over almost all spheres of human life belie the immoral nature of the monopoly powers they control?
Non-Government Options
Morality can be restored to public governance if our citizens want it! Freedom of Choice is the only way that this can be accomplished in any society that can legitimately be called a “democracy”. Legislated coercion can hardly be considered a feature of a civil, democratic society.
Modern Digital Commerce can enable Democratic Capitalism to gradually replace the Autocratic Socialism that has swept our nation in the recent half century. It has the potential to quickly enable the creation of a robust market of optional non-government service providers from which citizens can choose rather than being depend solely on the comparable services that governments currently control on a monopoly basis.
Public Education and Health Care services are the most obvious places to start this transition. The emergence of many Non-Government Service Providers that would compete with Government Service Providers is how Democratic Capitalism will support a truly Free To Choose democracy. It will empower every individual to make the best and most well-informed choices for themselves and their loved ones.
Competition works in the free market and will also work in “public services” sectors.
Only two changes are required to unleash the advantages of competition. First, repeal all existing legislation that currently underpins public sector monopolies. Second, create legislation that will allow citizens to Opt-In or Opt-Out of government services in each sector.
For example, if you wish to support public Education, then Opt-In and pay your share of taxes to cover its costs. Otherwise, Opt-Out and use your tax savings for other personal priorities such as sending your child or grandchild to one of many alternatives Non-Government Education Service Providers that are sure to emerge as this market expands.
[More about Non-Government Options and be found under Platform on the Libertarian dot on dot ca web site]
Ethics, Morality and Collectivism
Collectivism is the claimed ‘moral imperative’ from which politicians and public officials derive all talking points to sell their grand schemes for government expansion. “The greater good” and “in the public interest” are phrases often heard that sound “moral” but often prove only to be “ethical” once the rules of their schemes have been enshrined in legislation and enforced by governments’ enforcement bureaucracies.
Collectivist rhetoric seems to have an alluring power to distract many of us from the reality that all of ‘society’ is comprised of individuals. It dumbfounds me that so many people can be convinced to forget that each one of us lives a unique life during which we each experience our own unique needs, interests, circumstances, relationships, dreams and much more.
Collectivism is an illusion. It is simply a concept that is useful to leaders who want to sell an agenda with them in control. If you doubt this, then answer this question: “When was the last time that you went to lunch with a ‘greater good’, a ‘society’ or a ‘public’?” My point is, collectivist terms are simply constructs of language that represent an idea but do not represent individual persons and his or her unique life .
The takeaway
The next time you hear a politician claim in collectivist terms the advantages to some new government scheme, think about each of your loved ones and ask how it might benefit or harm each one of them. Also, don’t confuse the morality of their proposals with ethical considerations. They are very different and deserve a separate analysis.