Why Big Government Doesn’t Work
posted at 6:05 pm on October 2, 2009 by Doctor Zero
printer-friendly
Author’s note: I’m sorry if this runs long. I think it’s important enough to spend some time on, and I wanted to present a thorough argument. I hope you’ll indulge me.
A person living entirely on their own produces very little, beyond the bare minimum necessities of survival. He has no real “wealth” – no surplus production, to spend on discretionary endeavors. He has few real options in life, beyond daily survival. His moments of real choice come when he gets lucky. An exceptionally fortunate hunt might feed him for a few days, and give him some precious leisure time. Otherwise, he does what he must do, and rarely has time to think about what he could do. Some people enjoy living this way, but most do not.
The situation improves somewhat in a small, voluntary collective: a partnership with a trusted friend, or a small family living on its own. Their combined efforts produce more surplus food, and they can address the necessities of life with less individual effort. They may develop skills and talents that prove valuable to each other. Some people are content to live this way, with a small and isolated family that maintains very little contact with the rest of humanity – but, again, most are not.
When families begin cooperating with each other, production and wealth explode. Communities generate tremendous amounts of surplus production, and commerce allows people access to goods and services they could never produce themselves. The amount of time required to deal with personal survival dwindles away to virtually nothing. Doubtless the reader works hard at his or her job, but your job probably has very little to do with feeding or clothing yourself, or defending yourself from predators. Instead, you produce goods and services that would be unimaginable to a more primitive society – could you explain your job to someone from the tenth century A.D.? In exchange, you earn money, which you spend to purchase what you need – and, more importantly, what you want. Even the poorest member of an advanced society has options.
An advanced society requires a method for allocating its huge amount of surplus production, and meeting the basic needs of its members. There are two general mechanisms for doing this: commerce and government. Every society uses a mixture of these methods. Even the most totalitarian government has a black market, and even the most free-wheeling capitalist society will have a government. Attempts to artificially engineer a society without either commerce or government are doomed to failure, because they will form spontaneously, no matter how strictly they are forbidden.
Government and commerce don’t just co-exist in an uneasy truce. They need each other. Commerce, the free exchange of money for goods and services, produces wealth through choice. Remember the example of the man living alone: the poverty of his existence comes from his lack of choices. The value of money flows from the way it allows consumers to express their choices. For a simple illustration of this principle, compare a ten-dollar restaurant gift certificate to a ten-dollar bill. The ten dollar bill is more valuable than the gift certificate, because you have more choice in how to spend it. A government increases the wealth of its citizens by providing security – stable currency, secure borders, protection from criminals, respect for property rights, and legally enforceable contracts, to name a few of government’s duties. This has the effect of increasing the citizens’ wealth, by increasing the choices available to them. A ten-dollar bill has more value in a large, lawful city than on a tiny island where few goods are available, or a den of thieves where nothing can be bought with confidence.
Consider the example of the impoverished loner versus the citizen of a prosperous society again. The citizens’ money represents wealth, thanks to his many choices, but it represents something else of enormous value: extra time. The loner spends most of his waking hours staying alive, and seeing to his minimal needs. The wealthy citizen spends almost no time on these things – he uses it for economically productive work, self-improvement, and leisure. A ten-dollar bill will purchase you a shirt that you probably don’t know how to make yourself… and even if you had the knowledge, it would most likely take you longer to make the shirt than it takes you to earn ten dollars.
Government allocates wealth through top-down commands, imposed by force. There would be no need for massive tax and spending bills if everyone was freely choosing to spend their money the way the government wants them to. Capitalism has priorities, while government has imperatives. Capitalists fulfill their ambitions through competition, which increases the choices available to consumers. The ambitions of the working class lead them to work harder, and engage in increasingly valuable and productive labor, to earn a better living for themselves and their families. This system is not perfect – there will always be people who try hard but don’t get ahead, and people who don’t make a very productive contribution to society – but over the long run, and measured against a population of millions, free market commerce will tend to produce increased choices, improved technology, and greater value through competition.
Government fulfills its ambitions through compulsion, which reduces choice. Sometimes compulsion is necessary – you can’t fund national defense by passing around a collection plate. When government exceeds the minimal functions necessary to provide stability and security, and begins interfering in the economy for the benefit of certain constituencies, by definition it reduces the overall choices available to its citizens. It doesn’t matter if the government’s intentions are noble – every law it passes to redistribute wealth inevitably reduces wealth, because it reduces choice.
In an economy dominated by the government, the ruling class fulfills its ambitions by serving faithful constituencies at the expense of others. It tries to address its failures by increasing control, which reduces wealth even further, in a downward spiral. It’s not in the nature of government to abandon failed programs, because if government was intelligent and morally superior enough to assert control over a situation in the first place, it will not see the logic in surrendering that control to inferior free-willed citizens. Instead, it will redouble its efforts.
In this environment, the citizens can best fulfill their ambitions by joining favored constituencies if possible, and becoming adept at petitioning the government for greater benefits. This tends to be more successful than working hard, as there is little competition in a state-run economy for the most skilled and productive workers. There are always exceptions – people who give 100% effort out of compassion, personal drive, or a religious calling. There will be politicians who are truly selfless, and sincerely wish to act as wise stewards for the resources of society. Exceptional people cannot be relied upon to power a society of millions. In the long run, and projected over a vast population, the incentives of a government-dominated economy produce stagnation, and strife between warring groups of citizens, who can only gain more benefits at each others’ expense.
That is why Big Government never works. It can’t address conflicting priorities efficiently. The ambitions of its masters are best served by catering to the demands of small, energetic groups, or big corporations who wish to compromise its rightful duty to ensure free trade. Its citizens are not rewarded for exceptional effort, or taking great risks. Worst of all, every single action it takes destroys the very wealth needed to improve the lives of its citizens. Big Government pounds on every problem with a hammer that crumbles in its hands.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Greenroom Feed
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
absolutely beautiful! couldn’t have said it better
tai-pan on October 2, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Your philosophical explanation of the relative capability and effectiveness of government and commerce is, as is most your writing, extremely well done. All i would add is that you make it seem as if only government restricts choice when it involves itself in commerce…when in reality commerce left to its own devices can do the very same thing, through monopolies and other anti-competitive practices. When you say that there are some things govt is necessary for, you would do well to include something other than defense…for without market regulations, business can stifle competition just as well as govt can.
ernesto on October 2, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Dr. Zero, one of these days, because of you’re appreciation of Sarah Palin’s political gifts, I wish that you could eloquently respond to Steve Schmidt and his preemptive strike against Going Rogue. To me its revisionist not to honestly observe that the McCain campaign was utterly knocked off their rockers, after the near meltdown of the financial system precipitated by the collaspe of Lehman Brothers. The campaign that was put ahead in the polls by the superb performance of Palin on the campaign trail, her RNC speech, and her introduction speech in Akron, was suddenly incoherent in their ability to verbalize what was happening in the economy. This incoherence was noticeable in McCain’s speeches at the time that were all over the place about Wall Street villians to trying to explain derivative instruments. The McCain campaign in a state of complete panic and confusion, had McCain suspend his campaign and had Palin go on the Katie Couric broadcast to pull a rabbit out of the hat. Was it any wonder with no coherent message or strategy to speak of that Palin put in her worst interview of the campaign? Recall that Palin was good in her Charlie Gibson interviews, with the exception of the whole flap about the so-called Bush Doctrine and even with this the thinking was emerging that she was treated unfairly by the unflattering demeanor with which Charles Gibson conducted the interview. And who was to blame for the whole wardrobe fiasco that occured in the final weeks of the campaign? So Dr. Zero, I can only think that you are best to express some sentiments about this topic and properly respond to the asinine assertions made by the worst campaign manager I’ve witness in my lifetime.
milemarker2020 on October 2, 2009 at 7:34 PM
True, but that ship has already sailed…we are now in a debate about Government vs. Private Sector because the push from the Dems isn’t just for more civil regulation…it actually become about out and out Government control…from GM to health care…the Dems are taking over (or trying to take over) huge portions of the market…directly.
AUINSC on October 2, 2009 at 8:30 PM
Very well said. Government is only good at massive, uni-directional projects. Making war. Counting the populace. Putting a man on the moon. Creating an interstate roadway.
Even in those situations, private groups can often do it better. But at least the government has proficiency there.
Now consider the example of health care. Every person presents a different set of options. The nature of illnesses and treatment are constantly changing. The cost of benefits is constantly changing. The mix of people paying into and drawing from the system is constantly changing.
Trying to handle this endless list of variables is a government office. Instead of people spending dollars for the services they truly want, government confiscates dollars and allocates them for the services they THINK people want, or worse, for the services that they believe would be best for citizens who don’t want them.
hawksruleva on October 2, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Brilliant, Doc.
I sincerely hope you get to write speeches for the Palin campaign.
aquaviva on October 2, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Some of the best writing in the blogosphere, thank you Dr. 0.
RedRedRice on October 2, 2009 at 8:48 PM
And nothing illustrates this better than the Obamacare fiasco.
Fletch54 on October 2, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Ernie,
It is GOVERNMENT that is PREVENTING insurance companies from competing cross-state.
The number on thing that can be done to prevent monopolistic practices and abuse is to tear down those walls and free up competition to drive the crap insurance companies out of business and let the good ones survive.
Believe it when I say a co. that does not treat its customers well will not be in business long if you allow people to choose.
You are thinking like I did many years ago when I was young and foolish in college and didn’t understand how businesses work.
My guess is that you are young.
Free-market competition is what drives the losers out, and lets the better run companies survive which means better service at reasonable prices.
Combine with high-deductible policies for catastrophic and medical savings accounts along with cutting off the link between employees and employer provided full-comprehensive insurance will do more to keep costs down.
That is the way you REFORM healthcare.
I would also add a small independent fund for people with pre-existing conditions financed by a small tiny % of the premiums from other funds from customers.
As long as someone else pays your bill, you have NO incentive to save.
Sapwolf on October 2, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Something our current government selectively chooses not to do…
Doc, I believe you are a true National Treasure…
… Why not hook up with Sarah Palin and rock the world?
Seven Percent Solution on October 2, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Another piece by the Honorable Dr Zero more than worthy sharing with the rest of the Internet. Which all due credit properly given of course.
RuffledRaven on October 2, 2009 at 9:03 PM
You Doc, are one of the few I can stand to allow the indulgence.
Doc, Doc, Doc. The first three paragraphs are completely wrong on a stereotypical basis in support of a commune. I pass on that thanks. I understand your argument, you simply built up to your main point using bad assumptions, information, and stereotypes. Can’t agree with it at all.
The 4th paragraph you start talking about building inter community economies. I can agree there. But it’s all about the individual Doc, if the individual can’t profit, there is no incentive to contribute or market. That’s the point of oppressive government rules causing a black market. The incentive to profit, to get ahead a little, or even get what you need without extra cost of government interference.
Beyond that point you move back into the A+ column. I’d just watch your use of assumptions. Individuals aren’t by definition isolationist. Survival doesn’t dictate socialism, but being social does help.
Spiritk9 on October 2, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Material decency and beneficial self-realization for all can best be provided if goods and services are produced in an atmosphere of free and fair economic competition. Only the private sector can engage in free competition. Only the government can ensure fair competition.
Knott Buyinit on October 2, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Well said.
Count to 10 on October 2, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Doc, you are a frickin’ genius.
Outstanding work, my virtual friend.
directorblue on October 2, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Spot on as usual, thx doc.
AltTuning on October 2, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Skookum Doc.
I would add that the reason that big government acts like a jerk is power.
I think it was Friedrich Hayek who said
I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored by the exercise of power. For example, when a righty government is in power, lefties might use the quotation above and righties will use it when a lefty government is in power.
But it’s not a question of left or right, is it?
We should remember that the power of big government always has the destructive effects that you describe, whether it is exercised from the right (George W) or the left (Barack O).
westerncanadian on October 2, 2009 at 10:07 PM
I tend to think of money as energy tokens, crystallized representations of work. For the person living alone, the energy required for his life is expressed quite literally: work for fuel and shelter, so as to enable more work. As tasks become distributed, that energy can be allocated in exchangeable ways: work for work, still rather literally. It is when there are larger comminglings of working agents that a more abstract representation of that work becomes necessary. Thus, currency: a ‘marker’ for work done, against the products of others’ work.
Free market systems allow that energy to flow freely, in a distributed, network-like arrangement. It is a self-organizing topology, where the free energy flows organically through the system in ways that optimize its operation.
Command economies are hierarchical architectures with flow patterns designed and enforced from the top down. Stovepipes and culs-de-sac are endemic to such an arrangement, and numerous energy sinks erupt like cancerous growths due to the ‘unnatural’ imposition of plans and programs to regulate the flow of energy. The whole becomes divorced from the parts which would otherwise arrive at far more elegant emergent structures if given the space to do so on their own.
Your analysis, as usual, is masterful and thought-provoking. Thanks!
Noocyte on October 2, 2009 at 10:12 PM
That was an excellent post, very well composed. Keep up the good work.
Living4Him5534 on October 2, 2009 at 10:15 PM
If you want to win a war, push a large, unprofitable project through, or build a coordinated interstate highway, large, centralized control is a good thing. When it comes to individuals, however, there are problems. The main one is this:
Government is not a human being.
Government is a machine. It has no heart or soul. It reacts with if-then logic. The variables of human existence are too many and come in too many combinations for the machine to handle, so it has no choice but to try to pigeonhole everybody and do everything it can to make sure you stay in your #^%#&&!! pigeonhole. The result is that eventually government will try to make everything forbidden that is not mandatory; in other words, we are treated like machines by the machine. The term for this condition is tyranny.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on October 2, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Nice work Doc. Communist Russia saying…”We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.” The net result of the command economy is standing in lines for bread, soap and shoes.
Completely unrestrained capitalism has serious drawbacks too. Remember the ‘company store owns my soul’ days of coal mining? Yet, the government imposing one size fits all doesn’t work too well either as Brian cites. A good example of that is the 6 year old suspended from school for bringing a plastic knife in his lunch (zero tolerance).
Decentralized government is the key with the exceptions noted such as national defense etc.
GnuBreed on October 2, 2009 at 11:35 PM
So true!!
And also there is the very real problem that the cure for one person may be the very thing which kills another person: government boards set up to “determine what is best for you” cannot handle individual variations, and so they are doomed to miserable failure and degeneration into “Death Panels” which stupidly deny needed treatment for some and stupidly force others into inappropriate and dangerous treatments.
And at the root of health care is the problem that ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL can determine when he is “well” and when he is “sick”!!! Nobody is perfect, and some will tolerate and live well with symptoms which would debilitate others. So the bottom line is that any attempt to make the seeking out of health care something other than an individual choice is doomed to failure.
landlines on October 3, 2009 at 12:02 AM
Great op-ed. What is Big Government?
“Big Government, in its most raw form, is a group of individuals that through coercion turns human beings into either beasts of burden or perpetual children.
It is that group which preaches entitlement over responsibility, dependency over self-sufficiency. It purports that people are incapable of caring for themselves through free and voluntary choices, and therefore must be coerced into “doing the right thing.” It prevents human beings from being fully actualized, keeps them in a form of subjection and – in its most extreme form – slavery.”
SBABG on October 3, 2009 at 1:53 AM
This is really the key to the whole story. Centralized planning and control (big government, in essence) is a theory that depends on one extremely important characteristic – a static system. Putting aside issues of individual liberty and feelings of freedom, the essential problems that plague all centralized systems are growth and a dynamic environment. Growth is what causes the best intentions of egalitarians to be brushed aside, as seen in the minor example of new homes that must be built to accomodate the natural population growth, thereby introducing a stratification of heretofore identical housing. Demands for growth and change in other sectors cause the same sorts of problems with stratification of resources. Likewise, dynamic requirements cannot usually be met with single solutions, but instead call for a large amount of trial and error – best and most efficiently affected by many individual and independent actors attempting to come up with the best solution.
This is why, even though the Soviet Union never lacked for brain power and had many of the important discoveries available to them, they could not develop the industrial complexes necessary for taking advantage of these discoveries. This is why the USSR had tons of food, but couldn’t put together efficient delivery systems to get much of it to market, instead seeing upwards of 50% rotting in transit (and all of that occured even with the available knowledge of those complex systems that had been constructed in the US and needed only be copied instead of invented from scratch).
You hear many of these same naive notions from your standard leftist, who thinks that the discovery of an active ingredient is the only hard part and that the whole industrial complex which takes that raw discovery and eventually fashions it into a usable drug along with manufacturing, shipping, distributing it to the market in an efficient fashion. These are the ideas of a child who doesn’t understand the great difficulty that is posed by the construction of large systems, whose end goal is not always known from the start, but changes over time and must react and adapt to the changes as they appear necessary.
All of this requires independent actors working in their own areas, and overlapping in competition, with many failing at their attempts, but eventually a few succeeding and bringing to the rest the knowledge that all of the trial and error required, and that a centralized planner could never do on its own.
This was the main lesson of the failings of socialism that I learned from my time on Israeli kibbutzim, which represented the purest implementations of collectivist and leftist theories, at workable levels and with populations that were intelligent, able, and committed to the cause. But, even given all of these advantages in their attempt, the kibbutzim failed – because they could never handle the growth (as stratification of housing resources became major obstacles to the egalitarian ideas) and did not react to the changes that the environment forced on them.
Leftists all labor under theoretical worlds that are unchanging and static (which is why I label them STATICISTS). These are their “perfect worlds” and the static nature of them is why they are so ready to accept centralized control as a preferred (and natural, in a static world) state. It is also why they are so impatient to steal the wealth of others and redistribute it – since they don’t really comprehend the idea of creating wealth, but imagine that what exists today, and the distribution of it, will be the same tomorrow and the nbext day and the next day … unless someone outside forces it to change.
It is this STATICIST view of the world that all lefties truly build their theories around, which is why they are so eager to fall back on statism (centralized control and planning) as the natural organization.
progressoverpeace on October 3, 2009 at 2:01 AM
Dr. Zero, excellent article, as always. I enjoyed it.
I recall that the American holiday of Thanksgiving actually came about after the original Pilgrims tried – and failed horribly – to implement a collective paradise. The colony was on the brink of collapse, not producing enough food or other goods to sustain it, when it decided to abandon its noble intent and allow individuals to make their own choices regarding what they would produce and how much they would charge for it. The following year, the colony was so rich by comparison to the year before that they gave thanks to God for such a miraculous turnaround. Steyn went into great detail about this aspect of the history of Thanksgiving, which – to my knowledge, at least – is not taught in schools. Fancy that…
Actually you raise a good point, although the good Dr. was more focused on capitalism as a mature, efficient force, as it exists today, vs the raw-knuckled, sometimes ruthless infant it was back in the days of the Industrialists (Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Morgan, et.al.) who, in the absence of any regulation, preyed on customers and employees alike. To the degree that regulation and commercial law creates “enforced cooperation”, such things are good, and they illustrate the Dr.’s point that commerce and government are tied to each other.
The danger of Government ceasing to be an arbiter and becoming an active participant in the markets is that its power lures the worst out of commerce, which goes into a kind of “survival mode” to keep from being crushed by Government. At the extreme of this example today, you would find companies such as Goldman Sachs and General Electric.
Ten years ago, Enron tried to muscle in and tempt Government to actively twist the markets (via Enron’s attempt to build a groundswell towards Government implementing Kyoto) but, fortunately for the rest of us, Enron failed. But where Ken Lay tried to go back then, now you find Jeffrey Immelt standing there in his stead, deep in cahoots with another Democrat administration (Lay’s work was done during the Clinton administration back in the mid-1990’s).
My final word on this: some years ago, leftist musician Don Henley wrote an album where he imagined a world overrun by evil, powerful corporations. Such pap is a Leftist dream come true; a straw man which they cling to with all their might to “prove” that “benevolent, fair Big Government” is the only thing which will save the rest of us from the evils of the Giant, All Powerful Corporation. But nothing could be further from the truth.
I’ll leave you with a little thought exercise.
1. Name any corporation, company, corporate entity, etc. that had any power under the old Soviet Union. (”Design bureaus” created expressly by the Government do not count.)
2. Now name any corporation, etc. under the American capitalist system, that could survive a deliberate onslaught of Government regulation – taxes, rules, and/or laws designed to deliberately drive it out of business. (An example of this point would be Obama’s quote regarding his proposed practical impossibility of corporations investing in new coal-fired power stations.)
Notice that Government *always* wins when it flexes its muscle hard enough.
Companies create wealth by combining labour and materials to create things that are greater than the sum of their individual components.
Governments destroy wealth by appropriating capital from individuals and making choices that are not shaped or bound by competitive forces.
My two cents.
-Wanderlust
Wanderlust on October 3, 2009 at 3:39 AM
The free market is the way I vote, with each purchase, on what I want other people to do for me. It is THE most democratic institution on the Earth. And it is far far bigger than any government.
I want to keep my direct democratic vote in the economy. The communist-liberal-progressives, like Obama, Frank, Pelosi, Reid, want to take this away from me.
{^_^}
herself on October 3, 2009 at 4:18 AM
Thomas Soule said it best:
Who’s more likely to make better decisions for people in general? A couple hundred thousand at the top, or 250 million at the bottom?
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on October 3, 2009 at 5:32 AM
Thanks Doc,well said as usual.
milemarker2020 on October 2, 2009 at 7:34 PM
I like what he says too.
tim c on October 3, 2009 at 6:00 AM
In other words as Thomas Paine said: government is a necessary evil
unseen on October 3, 2009 at 6:51 AM
So what do we do about it? To think we are somehow going to get any President or majority in congress to decrease the size of government in any meaningful way in the near future is fallacy. Even your beloved Palin presided over the largest increase in the size of government her state has ever seen.
This trend will only stop when China quits lending us money and forces the politician to quit spending, it doesn’t appear to me it will be because of any movement or political rhetoric.
I don’t know the answer to it other then selecting politician that can actually govern to which there are few and far between.
lowandslow on October 3, 2009 at 6:58 AM
So what do we do about it? To think we are somehow going to get any President or majority in congress to decrease the size of government in any meaningful way in the near future is fallacy. Even your beloved Palin presided over the largest increase in the size of government her state has ever seen.
This trend will only stop when China quits lending us money and forces the politician to quit spending, it doesn’t appear to me it will be because of any movement or political rhetoric.
I don’t know the answer to it other then selecting politician that can actually govern to which there are few and far between.
lowandslow on October 3, 2009 at 6:58 AM
The answer was given 222 years ago. You limit the powers of government. Just because the federal government has burst its consitutional chains does not mean it is hopeless. When a animal breaks out of its cage you do not say oh well that’s that. You recapture it and place it back in its cage.
The way the federal government broke its chains was the commerce clause therefore you must redo that clause to again limit the powers of the federal government. Also the ability to tax income, income withholding gave the federal government untold wealth to tap. Those must also be removed.
We need a consitutional amendment movement in the country again. We can start with the 1st amendment that has never been ratified by the states making the House of repersentatives bigger thereby decreasing the power of each individual house member.
unseen on October 3, 2009 at 7:04 AM
To Propose Amendments
Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or
Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
To Ratify Amendments
Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once — to ratify the 21st Amendment — repealing Prohibition.
The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within “some reasonable time after the proposal.” Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a “reasonable time” might extend.
Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.
unseen on October 3, 2009 at 7:06 AM
I know your hearts in the right place but the reality of it is, that will never happen.
lowandslow on October 3, 2009 at 7:22 AM
know your hearts in the right place but the reality of it is, that will never happen.
lowandslow on October 3, 2009 at 7:22 AM
It has and it will again. If and only if the people demand it. And it is more than getting the final amendment to pass. Just the process has positive results. Look at the move in the 90’s for a balance budget amendment. during that movemnt the government actually balanced its budget. So the “need” for the amendment would be lessened. Or the equal rights amendment. It failed but it did wonders to increase the rights of wmoen in the workforce.
If Reagan missed the boat on anything he failed to cement his revolution in the consitution. And 30 years later we have to “retake” the party once again. The founders made it hard but not impossible to change the consituion for a reason. They wanted to ensure that the vast majority of the country agreed with the change. There are alot of issue that the vast majority of Americians agree on. the parties tend to explode the issues that Americians no not agree on on to further their power. However the issues that Americans agree on are usally not talked about. For instance illegal immigration 80% of America is against giving illegals amensty. therefore the states should start making noise on that front. Taxes is another big one the only pewople for taxes is a small percent that gain power fro them. The consitutional amendment process will have the effect of bringing the country together and break the 50/50 split it has now
unseen on October 3, 2009 at 7:33 AM
Thanks, Doctor Zero, for a quite compelling exposition. I have read all the comments and gained something from them as well as from the thinking I did when reading your post.
I hope that you recognize that your articles provoke good, intelligent discussion (nobody has called anybody commenting here a moron yet!) and that they, especially this one, lead to research based on your ideas and concepts. For instance, while reading this, I have looked up Thomas Paine, roundabout production, Austrian economics, and Robinson Crusoe.
I think most comments here show a concern about overly intrusive government, overly powerful government, and corresponding loss of individual rights guaranteed Constitutionally. I share those concerns and am actively seeking ideas, methods and techniques whereby government can be forced to become smaller and whereby the governed will willingly accept the reduction in size of government. After all, one of the tenets of government in this country is that government derives it right to govern from the consent of the governed. Politicians can pontificate all they want about “what the American people want” but, when they are wrong, We The People have the right to elect someone else.
Anyway, before this comment becomes as long as your original post, I want to recognize you for the valuable contribution you make to the HotAir Community. I look forward to your posts and articles. Thank you!
ExpressoBold on October 3, 2009 at 7:50 AM
Another great post Dr. Z. I think Thomas Jefferson said it best – A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
redridinghood on October 3, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Well, then, let’s all just admit we’re the state’s slaves, then.
Crawford on October 3, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Doctor, in addition to the economic argument — that redistribution of wealth by the government limits choice and is ultimately cannibalistic (versus capitalism which is creatively destructive, destroying the market for buggy whips but creating one for spark plugs) — isn’t the more venal sin that Big Government and Redistributionism destroys the individual?
Destroys the producer: Destroying individual achievement? Destroying the incentive to innovate? To create? (Even on a deserted island, I believe an individual must create not just for the survival of the body but also the human spirit.)
Destroys the recipient: Creating and enslaving a growing segment of the population increasingly dependent on entitlements?
Would love to see your thoughts expanding beyond the economic argument to the moral argument, looping back to your earlier essay “Death of the Individual.”
publiuspen on October 3, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Doctor Zero *is* the unofficial third leg of the HotAir stool, as far as I am concerned. What brilliant and consistent writing, well worth the time it takes to consume and deliberate upon.
In a world that we can only dream about at the moment, the good Doc Z would be President Palin’s head speech writer, if not Press Secretary (although it would be a hoot to see Rush Limbaugh or Dennis Miller assigned that detail).
Of course I am linking to this essay. Well done, Doctor!
itzWicks on October 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Thanks Doctor Zero. I see Paine’s Common Sense, Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, Friedman’s Free to Choose, and lots of Professor Sowell (soul) in your writing. Another great post about root issues.
Now, on to the solutions!
clorensen on October 3, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Good lord, I don’t know if can take another DZ essay, cause I just OBSESS about it for days! DZ occupies a great deal of my time, because he forces my manic OCD little brain to really focus and I am a much better person for it. Bravo, DZ…I so hope you continue, here and beyond. Truly, as many people have suggested, you’d be magnificent as Sarah’s speech writer. Not only for the content, but you really know how to condense and capture the essence of truth, in a way that makes the reader (or listener) believe themselves capable of understanding these issues.
Catherine Wilkinson on October 3, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Respectfully, though intended as a compliment do we not limit Doctor Zero by suggesting the role of speechwriter for anyone other than himself/herself?
publiuspen on October 3, 2009 at 11:39 AM
He made it clear commerce needs government. I’m not sure it’s necessarily to expand on that. It seems fairly obvious without government cheating is more successful than competing.
jhffmn on October 3, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Great, but it doesn’t go back to basics — all the effects you describe are real, but they aren’t the basic thing.
First, big anything doesn’t work. Ask James J. Ling. There is no bean counter anywhere who won’t tell you, with extensive PowerPoint presentations full of bullet points, that centralizing everything will make it all more efficient; that’s the fundamental distinction between a “bean counter” and an “accountant”. It never works, because it can’t work.
Second, you don’t offer any explanation for why “When families begin cooperating with each other, production and wealth explode.” To answer that, you have to go back to the Unconstrained Trade.
Third, you accept the artificial distinction between a “capitalist corporation” and “Government”. There is none. Corporations are created by Government to facilitate tax collection; the fact that they were found useful for other things, and that the “other things” turn out to be much more important, doesn’t change that basic function, which continues today. Moreover, in an industrial society everybody’s a capitalist, or they freeze in the dark.
So long as we on the right accept the conventional explanations for things we will continue to lose, because the Left found facile responses to the conventional explanations long ago and will continue to trot them out. We need to go back to the fundamentals and re-think.
Regards,
Ric
warlocketx on October 3, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Your point is well taken.
If he has any aspirations for public office, I would certainly entertain and support them!
itzWicks on October 3, 2009 at 12:59 PM
In my opinion, prior to Unconstrained Trade, primitive societies and traditional economies derive increased production and increased wealth (excess or unconsumed production) because of division of labor and specialization.
I took Doctor Zero’s example to be nuclear, atomic even, as a rational path to success used by disorganized societies with limited government that may have recognized a strategy of sharing objectives but dividing tasks allows efficiencies to develop within the “clan”, as it were.
ExpressoBold on October 3, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Primitive societies derive their wealth from unconstrained trade, just like all others. It’s the only place to get wealth. (The link’s to my blog; my trackbacks aren’t working.)
What primitive societies lack is the complex mechanisms to convert the existential wealth derived from unconstrained trade into tangible or semi-tangible artifacts that can be used in further trade. In effect, they can’t compound their gains because they lack the systems necessary to realize wealth in a form that can be compounded.
Regards,
Ric
warlocketx on October 3, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Why Government Can’t Run a Business
The Obama administration is bent on becoming a major player in — if not taking over entirely — America’s health-care, automobile and banking industries. Before that happens, it might be a good idea to look at the government’s track record in running economic enterprises. It is terrible.
In 1913, for instance, thinking it was being overcharged by the steel companies for armor plate for warships, the federal government decided to build its own plant. It estimated that a plant with a 10,000-ton annual capacity could produce armor plate for only 70% of what the steel companies charged.
When the plant was finally finished, however — three years after World War I had ended — it was millions over budget and able to produce armor plate only at twice what the steel companies charged. It produced one batch and then shut down, never to reopen.
Or take Medicare. Other than the source of its premiums, Medicare is no different, economically, than a regular health-insurance company. But unlike, say, UnitedHealthcare, it is a bureaucracy-beclotted nightmare, riven with waste and fraud. Last year the Government Accountability Office estimated that no less than one-third of all Medicare disbursements for durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs and hospital beds, were improper or fraudulent. Medicare was so lax in its oversight that it was approving orthopedic shoes for amputees.
These examples are not aberrations; they are typical of how governments run enterprises. There are a number of reasons why this is inherently so. Among them are:
- more -
MB4 on October 3, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Not this govt. Not any more. Maybe it used to be that way but it hasn’t been that way for a while and that problem is rapidly accelerating under the current admin. and Congress.
Yakko77 on October 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM