Do you know what “in the public interest” means? The “public interest” is cited in myriad situations with a surprising lack of clarity in what is meant. I wonder if the public interest can be articulated in a meaningful way. Can we find a way to judge whether a particular action is sufficiently beneficial to the village, or the commons, to enforce the action?
Perhaps, a decision tree will yield a framework that can be applied to a variety of situations and illuminate those actions that may truly yield results in the public interest.
How does the decision tree respond to the question, “Is government funding of Olympic athletes in the public interest?
Does the action follow the rule of law?
The Constitution says, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. This clause does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
How can any individual interpret this basic law as allowing the subsidization of any elite athlete? You might find some emotional support for a disadvantaged individual who, somehow, gets noticed by supporters of elite athletes. I will not endorse government support of any athlete beyond equal support available to all residents.
The existing law is not wrong. It is not in the public interest to fund Olympic athletes. Full stop.
It might be informative to review the remaining public interest decision points.
Does the action protect the individual’s right to act independently as long as the individual does not initiate force?
It is close to a truism that government funding comes with obligations. Once obligated, the individual forfeits much of her rights to act independently. However, as long as the athlete can bail out of the government program; the independent action aspects may not be definitive.
Does the action protect diversity?
Choosing to fund an exceptional athlete erodes diversity. The funded individual is already exceptional and government funding can be expected to widen the gap to elite levels; leaving other villagers with no funding support to pursue their aspirations. Making the elite more elite is not the usual view of diversity.
Does the action protect from discrimination?
Funding select Olympic athletes is the definition of discrimination against all other residents.
Does the action protect from concentration of power?
There is little concentration of power in individual Olympic athletes but significant concentration, and abuse, of power at the higher echelons of Olympic organizations. Using government funds to finance questionable, unaccountable, organizations is probably not in the public interest.
Does the action have the support of a majority of the public who will pay any public cost of implementation equally?
Under existing tax regimes, the government funding sources varies from zero to multimillions in taxes. There is no pretense at equality in the sources of funding for Olympic athletes by government. If you take the view the funding of Olympic athletes is one of the last things a government would do with its resources; you would find the government either borrowing the money it uses to fund Olympic athletes or using the last dollars remitted by highly taxed individuals. In any case, the government’s funds were not received, equally, from more than half of the residents of the jurisdiction.
Perspectives
I’ve been frustrated with infinite intrusions of government. I am a Chartered Professional Accountant. Our profession has pitched ‘the public interest’ for many generations. I’ve asked several prominent leaders what they mean by the public interest and, so far, not one has provided an answer I saw as coherent. So, I drafted the above decision tree. You may have better questions. You may have better answers. The effort should help us all sharpen the lines defining the public interest. I expect better definition will be in the public interest.