Ungovernable

by Russ Roberts on February 21, 2010

in Politics

There’s a debate going on in the punditsphere about whether America is ungovernable. We can’t seem to get anything done. On one side people argue that the failure of health care legislation and cap and trade prove that America is ungovernable. On the other side are those who argue that those are unpopular and America is as governable and ungovernable as ever.

I think it’s the wrong debate. Thomas Friedman in the New York Times unintentionally illustrates why:

A small news item from Tracy, Calif., caught my eye last week. Local station CBS 13 reported: “Tracy residents will now have to pay every time they call 911 for a medical emergency. But there are a couple of options. Residents can pay a $48 voluntary fee for the year, which allows them to call 911 as many times as necessary. Or there’s the option of not signing up for the annual fee. Instead they will be charged $300 if they make a call for help.”

Welcome to the lean years.

Yes, sir, we’ve just had our 70 fat years in America, thanks to the Greatest Generation and the bounty of freedom and prosperity they built for us. And in these past 70 years, leadership — whether of the country, a university, a company, a state, a charity, or a township — has largely been about giving things away, building things from scratch, lowering taxes or making grants.

But now it feels as if we are entering a new era, “where the great task of government and of leadership is going to be about taking things away from people,” said the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum.

Indeed, to lead now is to trim, to fire or to downsize services, programs or personnel. We’ve gone from the age of government handouts to the age of citizen givebacks, from the age of companions fly free to the age of paying for each bag.

The lean years? The lean years!?!?!?!!?

Government has never been fatter.

The crisis of government in America is that it does too many things badly instead of doing a few things well.

We don’t need more money for government. We need government to do what citizens struggle to do for themselves. We can debate what that range of activities is. I am on the side that government has taken on too many tasks that we can do as well or better for ourselves. When government takes on too many tasks, it is hard to find money to do the core activities of government well.

The ungovernability aspect of this problem is that it is hard to take away things from people and thrive politically. If you think 911 is an important activity of government, it is easy to keep it free. Get rid of all the nonsense government does that doesn’t need doing. Go back to the “lean” years of 1995, say, when California and the Federal government spent a lot less. Those weren’t the dark ages. But along the way, a bunch of money got added to a bunch of deparments and for some reason, instead of saying that was a mistake or unnecessary or best done privately, we start charging for 911.

That is a sign of ungovernability and it comes from ignoring the proper role of government.

Stop subsidizing housing. It’s bad enough that the Feds do it. But there is a vigorous California effort on top of the Federal effort. Stop subsidizing food and rich farmers. Stop policing trans fats. And smoking in restaurants. Stop trying to steer education from the top down. Stop creating programs for retirement and health that give money to rich people. Stop subsidizing rail travel. Stop all corporate welfare. Stop all tariffs and quotas. Get rid of the nanny state.

The mission creep of government makes it obvious that governmen is poorly run. Get out of the things it does poorly and do important things well.

How do we get there from here?

Read. Listen. Educate yourself. Teach your children. Talk to your neighbors. Vote as wisely as you can.

View Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • floccina
    Great post. The $300 911 charge does seem reasonable to me, in fact the $48 fee could cause some people to pay the annual fee and then abuse the system. My father was Fire chief and he told me way back in the 1970s that people were calling and using the rescue for non emergency trips to the hospital until they started charging more than the cost of cab fair. People are not all decent and not all easily embarrassed.

    On another note I have seen these situations were the school departments get turned down for an increase in funding and they start to ration paper. Now I do not think that I am a conspiracy believer but, paper is incredibly cheap and a very, very small part of a school budget, I think that they create a shortage of paper because that will get parents attention and get them more funding.
  • Charles Brezina
    Questions?
    1. When the words United States of America, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and united States of America which of the three are we talking about. united states of america and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are corporations.

    2. Don't look now but the health care reform is far from failure as you think.

    3. Government doesn't downsize, it shifts, and the reason is it willingly will not give up a vote. No one bites the hand that feeds them and government knows it. The only way to keep government lean is compell them to do the specific jobs demand in the United State Constitution. Which means returning to an honest exchange, eliminating the Federal Reserve(bank of england) per Article 30 of the Federal Reserve Act and each individual return to their proper status( it cannot be done for you by anyother individual), and the elimination of the 14th, 16th and 17th Articles of amendment.

    Until YOU demand a return to Honest Money based and set in weight and measure you will try in vain to repair the problems of society. The 14th Article of Amendment stops those elected from the monitary repair, ONLY to change the words and names keeping the same fractional reserve scheme and scam.

    The Federal Reserve, the greatest magic show on Earth.

    Charles Brezina
    antifederalist
    antifed@comcast.net
  • A.J. Lenze
    Three different points:

    1. Whether there are charges for using 911 service or not, it is not FREE. The city of Tracy has just come up with a new way to TAX.

    2. I've noticed that claims that the country is ungovernable come from those who can't get their agenda passed, for instance those who want more government. For example, *I* wanted the recent health care reform to fail, so I think, in that instance, government worked just fine.

    3. I worked during a number of boom and bust cycles. During the bust cycles, the company I worked for would downsize, which consisted of getting rid of the least productive workers. That left the company leaner and more productive and ready to take advantage of the good times. But perversely, government never downsizes. During the good times there's lots of tax revenue coming in so it's easy to grow government. During the bad times, the federal government runs a big deficit and helps out the states to maintain or grow the government size. Maybe it's good that the government doesn't downsize during a recession - maybe it keeps the bad times from getting even worse. But then we should be hesitant to grow government during the good times - otherwise, we're never going to get out of our debt hole.
  • muirgeo
    "How do we get there from here?

    Read. Listen. Educate yourself. Teach your children. Talk to your neighbors. Vote as wisely as you can."


    I... many of us do all those things and come to different conclusions as to what the problems and solutions are. The solutions most certainly don't involve shutting down opposing views and dialogue. Certainly not if you claim we need to talk to our neighbors.

    From the paper editorial comment of todays FT of London:

    "In the end, some mix of higher taxes and lower spending is plainly inescapable. The only question is whether Congress acts before financial markets force it to."

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/982998d6-1ef2-11df-95...

    And some more data/ evidence for why I take the position I do on taxing wealth;

    http://www.quickanded.com/2010/02/effective-tax...

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf


    Nothing to do with jealousy or fanaticism... it's a matter of pragmatism based on what has worked in the past and in other places.

    It's not the size of the government. It is an issue of who is running the government. What we are seeing is a problem of corporate run governance. Things will only get better if our leaders are held accountable to voters in more direct ways. Simply wanting the government to be less powerful means handing it over to the corporations IMO. I want a powerful government IN the hands of the people to counter balance the over reach of corporate excesses and quite simple to keep markets competitive and efficient.
  • JohnK
    It is an issue of who is running the government.

    Where does one find these people who are immune from corruption, self interest, and outside influence; who will not abuse their power for the benefit of themselves, their contributors, and their friends?

    The more power you give to government, the more power you give to the corporations that finance the politicians.

    Corporations cannot hold monopolies without friends in government prohibiting competition.
    Corporations cannot force anyone to do anything without friends in government either helping them or ignoring them.
    Corporations cannot socialize their risks without friends in government bailing them out.

    Corporations have no power except through government.
  • Well said
  • geckonomist
    "Simply wanting the government to be less powerful means handing it over to the corporations IMO"


    Could you show me one country that has a less powerful government and therefore is "handed over to the corporations"?
  • sethstorm
    China.
    India.
    Argentina.
    Brazil.

    That is, the other end of offshoring.
  • MWG
    You think China, India, Argentina, and Brazil have "less powerful" governments? Without speaking about all 4 countries, I can tell you I lived in Brazil for three years and am married to a Brazilian. I can tell you from my own experience that the govt. of Brazil is quite "active" in the lives of everyday Brazilians. Besides having some of the most stringent labor laws, largest public sectors (all unionized of course), they also have one hell of a bureaucracy. There many "elite" in Brazil, but the country itself is in no way controlled by corporations. It's quite the contrary.

    China has been handed over by the corporations? I'd love to see some supporting evidence.
  • sethstorm
    Given the rampant corruption, yes.


    China has been handed over by the corporations

    Handed over *to* the corporations. Whether it is a compliant "government business" such as Meitai or a multinational such as Google or Lenovo/IBM, "business friendly government" takes on a whole new meaning.
  • MWG
    So "rampant corruption" = corporate control.

    Actually corruption, as it exists in China, is a result of govt. intrusion into the economy. When the govt. decides which companies (if any) get to operate in which industries and in which regions you invite corruptions.

    Rampant corruption in China is a result of government "management" of the economy, not corporate control.
  • With $75T in debt and climbing, this is the conversation we should be having on the national level. Between 15-20 years ago, the Canadian government was in a similar position. The federal gov't divested much of their power to the provinces along with tax revenue streams, and stopped doing things. Even then it was the threat of Quebec secession that really spurred them on. They are now the only country in the G20 that runs a surplus with an economically viable social security system conforming to private insurance laws. Some western provinces are now as close to fiscal conservative / libertarianism in the western world.

    In USA, the same type of drastic measure must occur to avoid fiscal bankruptcy and lower standards of living. But it will be harder here. The same 3 pronged government designed in the constitution to prevent central power now acts as a barrier to divest it.

    Plus, at 10x the size, special interests are enormous in USA, and the government is more corrupt. There has never been such influences as Fannie Mae, or Barney Frank, or Geithner or Rubin in Canadian politics.

    I am frightened for our children; our looming debt is not even front page news yet. It will get much worse before it gets better.
  • In most California cities, government workers retired at 100% plus pay, on a fat six figure salary, at the age of 50 -- almost all of this unfunded.

    Do the math.

    $300 per 911 call isn't going to cover it ...
  • dlr
    Last paragraph is a total cop out.
  • dave
    Shorter Russ: If you GIVE people things, they'll like it! WAH!
  • Charles Brezina
    Perhaps people have forgotten that it was a militia not a government army that kick the king of englands' ass in a war so that we had his Rights to each and every American. We created a Constitution that gave government few and defined jobs. We made the mistake of allowing them 100% jurisdiction of commerce and corporations. Once you are attached to one of those two jurisdictions you are subject to all the whims of these designing bastards. Oh for sure for the peoples protection, here comes the tooth fairy. And naturally they have the policy enforcers(police) to put the glock in your face if you don't comply. Then there is the created US citizen by the 14th Article of Amendment that Jefferson warned about. A subject no different than the subject under king george III. Naturally anything created by the corporation is ruled and taxed to pay for allllll those sweet benifits(safety net) you receive cradle to grave. The word subject is a nice word for slave.
    We have a colorable government, we have colorable money because we have colorable status people. Ask what happened, where reading the Constitution, up to the Thirteenth Article of Amendment the word Citizen is a proper noun and why in the 14 Article of Amendment by the stroke of a pen you are now a common as a bug "citizen" subject. I maintain Martin Luther King was attempting to shed that subject(slave) 14th Article of Amendment status BUT not only did government NOT want the black man to be a Citizen with Rights, government was after the removal of the Rights from the white man. The subject citizen has mere privilege, cradle to grave.

    The 16th Article of Amendment created our funny money and to underwrite it the collateral is the land mass of America and the Labor of the US citizen(which most people when I asked, think that they are). With a colorable exchange you now must have a ruthless collection agency to spare no one but the elitists. So you have the Federal Reserve which is the print machine of the colorable exchange and then you have the Internal Revenue to collect the under written taxes for their benefits and to keep you from being buried in paper worthless money by taxing away your ability to consume.

    The 17th Article of Amendment hangs the sheep out to the wolves.

    Until YOU demand a RETURN to real money and that doesn't mean another name for the same fractional reserve swindle and a different color paper and tokens as coinage, NOTHING you do with a code, scheme, ordinance, or anything else will cure the ill of society, they will continue,as you see, to get worse and worse. Real money lengthens your day and allows for the self governance you should have to everything you do. Taxes were collected for the specific items listed in the Constitution common to everyone special to no one. Yes you will still have the 10% problems but that would be manageable, which is better than the stress and inability to manage 90% problems which is where we are today.

    Carroll Quigley, author of Hope and Tragedy( the elitists are the Hope and you are the Tragedy), was also Bill Clinton's mentor stated "by the time the American People wake up it will be too late". That was stated prior to his death in the ??1970's?? and it seems he wasn't American.
    We are in Serious Trouble; read, listen, educate yourself, Teach your sons and daughters, TALK to your neighbors. I believe the vote is now totally fraudulent and has been in Washington state since 1996.

    Charles Brezina
    antifed@comcast.net
    antifed=antifederalist
  • Plaidpundit
    Great post, Russ!
    It brought me to think of what Charles Krauthammer wrote a few days ago on leadership and 'ungovernable'. Great read! The link is here at my blog...
    http://plaidpundit.blogspot.com/2010/02/krautha...
  • Why do they use that word "governable"? Isn't that just sour grapes from the ruling class when it can't have its way with an unwilling populace?

    The preamble to the Constitution says, "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It says nothing about a goal being to make the country "governable."

    So why this angst over whether or not the country is governable? We should instead be concerned about whether we are securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and whether we are promoting the general welfare.
  • This is interesting. I have argued in the past for privatization of fire departments, with a similar annual fee, only to be shot down by my interlocutors who thought that was outrageous. But, the article Russ quotes above indicates, it will happen sooner or later, no matter who is in charge.
  • There are private fire departments.

    As I recall, perhaps in Prescott, AZ.
  • brotio
    I think it was at the Mises website that I read an article asserting that the primary motivation for making fire protection a municipal service was that it gave the politicians more opportunities for crony appointments.
  • Actually, Scottsdale had one as recently as 2005, when the contract expired:

    http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/...
  • Scottsdale, right, been a long time since I read about that in Reason.
  • Wow! $300 per call!

    Seems like someone could set up a business and do it for substantially less at quite a profit! I wonder if someone will?
  • Randy
    "The crisis of government in America is that it does too many things badly instead of doing a few things well."

    Actually, it does its core business quite well. The US government, like any government, is in the business of ruling. That is, it is a political/military organization whose purpose is to exploit the population under its control and to protect its ability to do so against all challengers. At these core tasks, the US government is very, very good - perhaps even the best ever. The question is; why do so many believe that such an organization would be any good at anything else? Why do so many believe that a political/military organization is their best choice to distribute their charitable contributions, invest their savings, deliver their mail, or educate their children?
  • Charles Brezina
    Dear People,

    When you allow your Honest barter monetary method of economics to be destroyed by gradualism, you see reflected in the people, Anarchy. Anarchy should really be defined as government out of control. The fractional system foisted and intended on us today keeps people so busy to keep up that they don't know what these pettifoggers are up to. That system must create unemployment insurance, social security insurance, a welfare program to give your labor to some one else that didn't earn it to keep them from riot, cost of living raises to major corporations that have many people employed so they don't talk about the lack of purchasing power and then riot, on and on. What the insurance insures is the people never catch on to the real problem. The intent of it, it is psychological warfare. We suffer the same shared misery of socialist/communist states, better disguised. We as a nation are young and the ONLY one that ever kicked a kings ass to take his liberties and give them to its people. There is no new world order any longer that the Antifederalists gave us with the Bill of Rights, IT IS THE OLD ORDER ABOUT TO BITE YOU IN THE ASS.

    The real intent of this "ungovernable" talk and taking things from the people is to get YOU to demand a new constitution. Our Constitution repairs EVERY ill we have if those we elect were compelled to do what was demanded of them as the publics servants instead of calling themselves "leaders". A servant does what you say these leaders don't care what you say because you said they could lead. Not one of them is a leader, at best they are ignorance in action which is the most dangerous, in the alternative they do it by design. I believe nothing happens by accident in Politics and is why our Constitution was a job description in order to take old world politics out of America. It is hard to be political with the Post Office for instance, if you don't get your mail it doesn't matter what party you are everyone would be on top of the Director to fix it or be replaced. The audit would be you receiving your mail.

    A nation of well informed men and women having been taught to know and Prize the Rights God had given them cannot be enslaved, it is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.

    Semper Fi

    Charles Brezina
    antifed@comcst.net
    antifed=antifederalist
  • DoNotSwallow
    "I have never yet known anybody who was trying to defend a government program who didn't say all it's evils came from the fact that it wasn't big enough." - Milton Friedman
  • This is indirect addressing so as to honor Russ's request while making the point for readers.

    Some people believe that it's possible to actually tax corporations and the wealthy to the benefit of "the poor".

    It simply does not work that way.

    Corporations collect taxes from the productive class via withholding and prices.

    The burden of government must always be borne by those who labor to create value. Thus, the net result of government spending (political control of resources) will always result in a general lower standard of living for the productive and the poor.

    The wealthy are hardly affected in their standard of living at all. They may have less to invest, or they find ways to reduce their tax liability.

    Corporations pass on taxes to their workers (indirectly) and customers (via prices).

    Thus the attempts by the left to make the wealthy and corporations pay for government benefits to the poor produce perverse results.

    That they think otherwise reveals the superficiality of their comprehension of economics.
  • Paul
    Why is a $49/year or one time $300 fee a problem? What's the big karma thing? What's next, public golf fees, marina fees?

    Big government is expensive. Pensions are expensive. Debts are growing, and marginal business and now no to light or marginally skilled labor is too expensive and is outsourced. This is a hundred year long process.
  • sethstorm

    Big government is expensive. Pensions are expensive. Debts are growing, and marginal business and now no to light or marginally skilled labor is too expensive and is outsourced. This is a hundred year long process.

    For increasingly skilled redefinitions of "marginally skilled". It would be better to kill this current iteration of outsourcing while we still can. Bring it back when there is a legitimate need, and make sure that long-term unemployment cannot be used against someone.

    Right now, it would be a complete lie to put forth any H1/L1/E*/etc. application in, as we have the people to do the job.
  • vidyohs
    As Russ and Don have pointed out so many times, the boogy bear of outsourcing is all a strawman to get ignoranuses riled up.

    A few years ago my wife and I visited Old Sturbridge Village in Mass, slightly southwest of Worcestor. One of the features was a printing shop where you could witness the old style of printing using hand set type. In the spiel the operator gave he mentioned that the owners of the shop during the the early 1800s made a substantial part of their living by doing piece work printing given to them by a large publisher in Boston. The large publisher jobbed out pieces of a book, or chapters to different printers around the Boston area, and then consolidated the pieces into the finished book or publication.

    I interrupted his spiel and commented, "You mean the Boston publisher outsourced the work, right?" He said, "Yes".

    Seems like intelligent outsourcing has been going on for a long time, eh? I leave it up to you to figure out why it was intelligent for the Boston publisher to do what it did.
  • sethstorm
    My problems with it happen to be when it crosses national boundaries. That is, when work is outsourced to places which are too low to reach, and bar our own citizens(unless you're a large multinational). I was hoping the immigration regulation reference would have given you enough of a hint as to which type.

    Asking to wait a couple generations to let this sort out is a bit much.
  • vidyohs
    You're left with the same results no matter whether the Boston publisher outsourced to Sturbridge Village or to Tiajuana, Mexico, potential employees in Boston lost out.

    Perhaps you should narrow your focus to city limits instead of national borders? No, maybe narrow it farther to a Boston city block, will that work, eh?

    When the founder of the Boston publishing house in my tale began his company, he did it with the idea of making a profit for himself and his loved ones, not with the idea of providing employment for others with him taking the leftovers; and, that is the way it will be in virtually every case, except in maybe extremely rare cases, cases I can imagine but not think of participating in.
  • sethstorm
    The difference is that Mexico is a different regulatory domain by virtue of being a different nation. Same with China, India, and the rest of the lot. Trying to apply it to the scopes you specify only are there to try to muddy the argument, nothing more.

    The leftovers you speak of are the profits. It is possible to do both at the same time.
  • vidyohs
    Now this mystifies me:
    "The difference is that Mexico is a different regulatory domain by virtue of being a different nation."

    You mean you think 1820s Boston had exactly the same regulations and rules as Sturbridge Village?

    That doesn't even happen today.

    For the Boston publisher and the people who might work for him if he kept all his business in-house, out sourcing to Sturbridge Village was no different than outsourcing to Tiajuna. Don't kid yourself. The regulatory environment where the outsourced work is done in immaterial to the fact that the work isn't being done in Boston.
  • sethstorm
    The main difference being that one can move from Boston to Sturbridge Village, or from one state/commonwealth/etc. to another without regulations getting in the way of the move. Most you have is a few forms, most of which deal with moving voluntarily accepted services.

    At the national level (say US and Mexico) there are deep roadblocks in addition to the distance that one has to travel. One cannot simply just go to Mexico to follow the job. Same for about most other countries - they do require citizenship of some sort. Finally, there are the issues of more than a few of these offshore/out of country destinations being quite hostile to you, but not a multinational.
  • sethstorm

    Stop all tariffs and quotas

    Not willing as you are to sell my nation's sovereignty.
  • theorlonater
    You don't have a "nation." Nor are you and your "nation" on some kind of team. I can't believe you still believe trade is a zero-sum game.
  • Brad Petersen
    How on earth does getting rid of taxes and quotas on imported goods harm U.S. sovereignty?
  • sethstorm
    See China, and its ability to use their government to undermine other nations by economic means.

    Repeat for any Third World country.
  • theorlonater
    You don't really read this blog often, do you? Nor do I think you understand free trade.
  • MWG
    Care to get specific?
  • sethstorm
    Business-government collusion, use of volume to overwhelm other countries in spite of harming your own country(such as their willingness to stick to mercantilism), and a general lack of quality that has not increased.
  • MWG
    Still no specifics, huh?

    "...use of volume to overwhelm other countries in spite of harming your own country"

    Sounds like dumping. Any examples of successful dumping where they've pushed US companies out along with all the other competition, gained a monopoly, and jacked up the prices?

    "...and a general lack of quality that has not increased."

    You mean like cell phones, computers, televisions, etc...?
  • sethstorm
    Yes.

    Features != quality.
  • MWG
    Yes.

    I'd love to hear a coherent case about how the quality has diminished or remained stagnant...

    My $300 iPhone is a hell of a lot cheaper and of a much greater quality than those old $4000 brick that were sold in the 80s.
  • johnpapola
    I believe that in the 1950s, unionization in the public sector was virtually zero. Today, there are more unionized public employees than private ones. I’d venture to guess that the ungovernability of our massive parasite state is in no small part the result of the collusive looting that’s going on between the public employees, their unions, and the people they dump billions into re-electing. Meanwhile, the taxpayer is the forgotten man.

    I’m not sure what the answer is, though banning unionization for public employees would be a start. That said, I’m not sure if that’s got a strong ethical unpinning. It’s hard. But what’s not hard to see is that the parasites are overtaking the host and killing us.
  • sethstorm

    I’m not sure what the answer is, though banning unionization for public employees would be a start. That said, I’m not sure if that’s got a strong ethical unpinning. It’s hard.

    That's not the answer, but repealing Taft-Hartley's relevant no-strike provisions are the answer.

    Corrupt businesses can do more damage w/ their influence on government that way, knowing that there is a party that cannot meaningfully object. It would be better to give them some leverage against entities that already do not need the ballot box (foreign companies/governments) to exact their influence. Keep them there as insurance against such entities that do not need the ballot box.

    The nation need not be remade as the South, nor influenced by it.
  • johnpapola
    Seth, I honestly don’t understand your reply. It seems non sequitur.

    My point was that public sector unions have become such a powerful interest group in collusion with the political leadership that it can maintain spending and spending increases on pointless projects that have nothing to do with what government could (theoretically) be good at.

    Take, for example, New York City’s MTA. We’ve seen increased fairs and reduced service in the face of the MTA and their union. Amazing. Hiking fairs and reducing service for an essential service that is used by the working people of this city during the deepest recession in a generation all so these unions can get their take. It’s pure theft.

    How any of this relates to “corrupt businesses” and some assumed ability of more powerful private sector unions to keep them in check (based on what evidence?) is beyond me.

    Workers are best served by a dynamic, competitive market with low barriers to entry. I have no problem with collective bargaining per se. I do have a problem with workers (or anyone else) violating property rights and threatening violence. If you want to band together and strike, go for it. Stay home. Picket on your property or, perhaps, the public street. But don’t threaten the workers that may get hired in your place. Don’t trespass on your employer’s property or otherwise try to disrupt their operations.

    I don’t know much about the particulars of the Wagner Act or Taft-Hartley. I do know that unions are inherently political entities that specifically operate as a cartel and attempt to impact government policy. I reject those elements as surely as I reject corporate use of government power.

    The answer is reducing government power and it’s inherent and historic role in magnifying the powerful interests of incumbents, be them workers or capitalists.
  • sethstorm

    I don’t know much about the particulars of the Wagner Act or Taft-Hartley.

    Specifically referring to (abuse of) the no-strike clause.


    I do know that unions are inherently political entities that specifically operate as a cartel and attempt to impact government policy. I reject those elements as surely as I reject corporate use of government power.

    My view is that in order to get rid of the problem you have to deal with both at the same time. If you attack unions and eliminate their influence completely, business will be more than happy to fill the void(e.g. offshoring threats and other things used to circumvent regulations). Same thing with business, as unions have filled such void (e.g. your MTA example, teacher's unions).




    Take, for example, New York City’s MTA. We’ve seen increased fares and reduced service in the face of the MTA and their union. Amazing. Hiking fares and reducing service for an essential service that is used by the working people of this city during the deepest recession in a generation all so these unions can get their take. It’s pure theft.

    Can't say that I disagree with you here. It's that when someone decides to try to break the union, unintended consequences occur.


    Workers are best served by a dynamic, competitive market with low barriers to entry.

    The problem is when nations are played against each other in that respect. Secondly, regional issues also add their part.

    That is an optimal conclusion, but one that will not happen if you ask for it. You'll get something that looks like it, but is used towards political ends(e.g. offshoring, its use to break unions, and its unintended consequence of affecting those whom called for the action in the first place).




    I have no problem with collective bargaining per se. I do have a problem with workers (or anyone else) violating property rights and threatening violence. If you want to band together and strike, go for it. Stay home. Picket on your property or, perhaps, the public street. But don’t threaten the workers that may get hired in your place. Don’t trespass on your employer’s property or otherwise try to disrupt their operations.

    The problem is that the business will not negotiate on a good faith basis unless it it has to. Give them an out, and they will take it (e.g. scabs).
  • johnpapola
    Seth,

    You have a very aggressive, combative concept of the marketplace and voluntary trade. I would argue that it’s trapped in some problematic assumptions, one of which being like and trade as a zero-sum game. It isn’t.

    The notion of “nations” being “played” against each other is part of this set of assumptions. Similarly, the idea that all businesses can be aggregated into one assumed posture is a generalization that makes your points pretty subject to problems.

    Some business people operate in good faith. Some don’t. I assume by that you mean fraud. If, instead, you mean trying to get costs as low as possible and profits as high as possible, I see nothing wrong with that. If a worker doesn’t like the deal being offered, go look elsewhere. If there’s nothing better available, that says something very different.

    I imagine we’re on very different sides on these things based on your comments. The case for free trade and competition on both ethical ground and empirical grounds is definitely pro-working class.

    I simply ask that you consider dropping the notion of people as blob aggregate groups. “Workers” “Business”. Speaking in these terms masks the mechanics of what really goes on. And in a world of ever-increasing self-employment, free-agency and micro-entreprenuers, the “business” and the “worker” are often the same single person.
  • sethstorm

    You have a very aggressive, combative concept of the marketplace and voluntary trade. I would argue that it’s trapped in some problematic assumptions, one of which being like and trade as a zero-sum game. It isn’t.

    When the pie grows and maintains a very similar sized shape as to the pieces...




    I simply ask that you consider dropping the notion of people as blob aggregate groups. “Workers” “Business”. Speaking in these terms masks the mechanics of what really goes on.

    I haven't seen much better in vocabulary to describe the division between business entities and their interests, and non-business-oriented entities and their interests.


    The case for free trade and competition on both ethical ground and empirical grounds is definitely pro-working class.

    Been there, heard that, saw the jobs leave.



    And in a world of ever-increasing self-employment, free-agency and micro-entreprenuers, the “business” and the “worker” are often the same single person.

    Not a gambler - went to Vegas multiple times, came home w/o a single bet - even after stepping within hands reach of slots and the tables.

    I have similar feelings as to what you are talking about in business. While there may be some "independence", I am not one for gambling one's life. Nor do I care for the trend of perma-temping on contract work.

    If I wanted to gamble, I'd go to the casino and throw numbers on the roulette wheel. Not with my finances, my life, or at the whims of someone who can/will treat contract workers as second class citizens. There's something to be said of having to not worry about your paycheck and being able to concentrate on the work at hand.

    Perhaps if you balanced business interests with those whom are simply wanting to look for honest work(in whatever profession it may be), I might be willing to reconsider things. I'm just not naturally predisposed to freelancing or starting a business - too honest. I would imagine that I am not alone in this respect.
  • Why would you pick on scabs?

    Do you think people own their jobs?
  • muirgeo
    Baloney! We've cut corporate taxes, we've cut taxes on the wealthy, we've allowed privatization of our prison system costing billions, we had Enron come in here and tear out billions of dollars thanks to deregulations you guys push. We've frozen property taxes. We've made it impossible for the legislature to act on the budget requiring a 2/3 majority for it to pass. Our infrastructure is crumbling. We have super wealthy people with tons of money sitting idle while we fight over school closings and paying for 911.

    You guys have pushed and pushed the mantra that government is bad, the republicans get in there and prove just how bad it can be run while spending more and more for crony capitalism that bust the budget. It's the Jude Wanniski two Santa Claus theory. The only way libertarian principles can "survive " in political reality.

    This is libertarian principals come to fruition. Indeed there is plenty of waste but the big picture is setting policy in the interest of what corporations and the wealthy want over what is needed for the rest of society.

    Your prescription to simply cut more services and cut taxes will with out doubt lead to even more destruction of our infrastructure and a further divide between the haves and have nots. And as long as that divide is great you will not see California the way it once was or the rest of the nation for that matter.

    There was a time when we had street cars in all our major cities, shiney smooth roads and free or very inexpensive state college tuition. Then came Governor Reagan and his Friedmanesque policies. He taught us to hate government... we learned to hate it and in the process we allowed it to be taken over by the wealthy and corporate interest. All the predictable results of pushing policy towards unregulated laissez faire principles.

    This is not the result of TOO much taxation. It's the result of haters of government of any sort even good governance getting their way and leading the country to ruin for the benefit of a wealthy elite minority.


    When we start taxing the crap out of extreme wealth things will improve.
    For now the poor can pay a $300 fee to 911 so the wealthy can have yet another 10 bedroom mansion they visit once a year.
  • The one point that I'll give muirgeo here is that the relentless skepticism of government on display in this blog is so clearly a cultural construct that I constantly find it surprising that so many academics subscribe to it as dogma. Whether American skepticism is a product of the Reagan years stretches back before my time. But across the board, country comparisons show great variability in trust of government and I think its far too simple to attribute this solely to naivete. I don't claim to be an expert on public choice policy and I'm open to any facts that anyone may have but I do know that scandinavians love their big government, are happy with it, and prosper.

    This isn't to say that we shouldn't be skeptical about government at all, only that we should be skeptical on a case by case basis rather than lump our ideas into some blanket repudiation of any and all government ventures; many of which have clearly benefited the growth of this country and human rights across the world.
  • geckonomist
    It's ridiculous that we should not respond to this post.

    According to Prof. Roberts smokers should be allowed to damage my health anywhere they meet me, out of libertarian principle, but when it comes to responding to a harmless comment on a blog, we should not have the liberty to answer it. What happened to those libertarian principles?

    But back to government tasks.
    Muirgeo points out education and government. Is government bad at providing education? Are only stupid economists employed to teach at state universities? Is GMU one of them ?
  • theorlonater
    No, Russ doesn't believe you should tell people how to manage their own property that you have no right to govern because you want to visit it for a day.
  • geckonomist
    governing property?
    If an owner tells his bouncers to beat the hell out of you -just for fun- (=bad for your health, on the spot), I doubt you accept that it is his property and he is allowed to "govern" it as he pleases.
    I guess you'll even call the government guns and have him arrested.


    The difference with an owner allowing others smoking around you, is that it might take 20+ years before your lungs feel the "beating" or the fatal damage to your health, and the owner won't have to pay for the damage he indirectly caused.
    To cover this externality, perhaps you wished the government guns would have acted a long time ago on the owner.


    But in principle I do agree that it is up to the owner to decide, if he pays for the externalities his decision causes.
  • brotio
    You mean, after sixty years of government propaganda about the severe health risks associated with smoking, you still aren't aware that repeatedly entering property where smoking is allowed could cause you problems?

    Your logic is baffling. Government tells you smoking is life-threateningly dangerous. The same government also gives subsidies to tobacco farmers - encouraging people to smoke, so that they can tax smokers to pay for Yasafi's malpractice. Yet you see the tavern owner as the demon, because he simply noticed that nonsmoking taverns are boring, and people won't go there. So he lets people smoke on his property.
  • You weren't prohibited. Russ made a polite request.

    Do you often overreact like this?

    Can you say "straw man"?
  • brotio
    Note that gecko also overreacted regarding smokers.

    I don't know of anyone who believes that smokers should be allowed to damage my health anywhere they meet me.

    I know many people who believe, that since smoking is (for now) a legal activity, that it should be up to the property owner whether to allow smoking or not, and for others to enter or not, as they choose.
  • geckonomist
    haha, no word about the point that Muirgeo made, about education and government, which Prof. Roberts clearly did not want to address.


    about smoking, nice faith in theory you many people have. In reality that policy means that nonsmokers will have to endure smoke everywhere, or stay out of restaurants, pubs, etc.
    Evidence all over the world of this ...fate,
    Like I had to endure it for 16 years (in various countries with such stupid faith as policy) until I moved to a country where they decided to forbid it in all pubs a few years ago. My quality of life jumped high from one day to the other. My health probably as well.


    If the smokers don't like the policy, then they can choose not to enter and stay at home.
  • brotio
    In reality that policy means that nonsmokers will have to endure smoke everywhere, or stay out of restaurants, pubs, etc.

    Or, nonsmokers could have opened their own, smoke-free restaurants, pubs, and taverns. Smokers are outnumbered two-to-one. Surely there's a market?

    If the smokers don't like the policy, then they can choose not to enter and stay at home.

    I'd be quite content with that, if it were left up to the property owner to decide. Why does freedom to choose make you so uncomfortable in this case? Why do you feel so much safer by letting the government's guns decide?
  • He's got the compulsion wrong, along with public vs. private (leftys always get that wrong) too.

    But that's really for a different thread.
  • Stephan
    I've no idea why responding to this comment is "prohibited"? Eventually it sums things up pretty well. You people want 19th century government and others don't. So? Are the comments on Cafe Hayek meant to be assent by acclamation? Reading the response from some it seems to be the function.

    So why not simply make the comment section members-only? Then Russ and his ilk can screen commenters and only admit political correct opinions. And everybody on this blog is better-off. No annoying dissent and vidyohs does not need to write so much comments about typical loony left. I mean to argue here is a hopeless task anyhow. I don't understand what muirgeo is trying to proof?
  • vidyohs
    Aw now Stephan, you don't like it because I comment about the looney left? How could I not, my little Chihuahua (muriduck is waiting for you up on the porch)?

    All of documented history reports one consistent thing and that is that the ideas you and muirduck et. al. hold dear, that you embrace, about socialism drive people directly into a brick wall, sooner or later you run out of other people's money and hit the brick wall. Does that deter you fools in any way shape or form from trying to think you can avoid the brick wall, oh no, not at all.

    Pardon me and others for not wanting to hit your brick wall, or give you the keys to the national car so you can drive it into the wall again, and again, and again.

    You, muirduck, Gil, Pubass Texhole, DK, et. al are indeed ignoranuses. You do know that a ignoranus is one who is clueless and an asshole at the same time, don't you.

    I got your hand out of my pocket, don't even think about trying to stick back.
  • Brad Petersen
    You are, as I suspected, a troll. As you well know, Russ didn't prohibit anyone from posting in response to muirgeo's nonsense. He merely asked that we not post because he is annoyed by muirgeo's repeated factual distortions.

    I also find it hilarious that you say "to argue here is a hopeless task anyway." How on earth would you know? You haven't bothered to make any arguments in your posts. You just snipe and say nothing of any significance or any intelligence.
  • Brad Petersen
    Muirgeo, I can only conclude from your post that all this coddling of the wealthy (a vague term you fail to define) means the California state budget has decreased massively in recent years. Oh, what's that? This year's budget is almost double that of 1995-1996, even with the recent cuts. No, no, we mustn't let facts stand in the way of a good distortion. Of course, I know that facts matter not to someone who repeatedly, relentlessly and deliberately distorts facts on this blog, but I'm hopeful they're important to the honest liberals out there.
  • russroberts
    Please do not respond to this post of Muirgeo's.

    It is silly to argue that we live in an era of smaller government. He seems to not understand the difference between tax rates and tax revenue.

    There is more tax revenue being collected today than in 1980. A lot more. Government spends a lot more money. As a percentage of the economy the share is fairly flat but has been growing dramatically under Bush II and Obama.

    Muirgeo continues to argue that we here in the liberty camp want corporations to have more power and influence over the government.

    This is silly. We want government to be less powerful. A less powerful government will be less able to give corporations the advantage.

    Please don't join this shouting match.
  • Brad Petersen
    Sorry Russ, I was in the middle of writing my response to muirgeo when your post came across, so I missed seeing it before I posted.
  • kebko
    Russ, by my estimation, government spending at all levels, adjusted for inflation, is roughly equal to the ENTIRE US ECONOMY of 1980!
  • A government that tries to do everything, or even just too many things, is ungovernable.

    Why do so many want ungoverned government?
  • Michael
    Mr. Roberts,

    I'm a daily reader of these pages and I just wanted to extend my thanks for your part in adding a little food for thought to my day. Reading some of the comments has led me to think that some may have missed your point. Your argument as I interpret it is essentially that government should practice "economy of force". In other words government focus should be intensive rather than extensive. I believe this to be true for governments, businesses and individuals alike.


    Best Regards,
    Michael
  • I agree with a lot of what you have to say here Russ, but as you foresaw we can have quite a colorful argument about the decisions that 'citizens struggle to do for themselves'.

    Case in point: we could allow smoking without restrictions and pay exorbitant healthcare costs as a result, much of which will ultimately fall on the government, because irrational individuals fail to properly account for long term costs in the face of short term benefits.

    Or the government could pass a law that requires relatively little policing but will save billions in long term health care costs while adding years of economically productive life to individuals who would otherwise choose to smoke as well as their unfortunate compatriots who happen to be in the same room as them.

    Restricting freedom isn't an ideal solution, and we should rather provide incentives to individuals so that they are better able to take into effect the long term costs of smoking to themselves and their peers. In lieu of a plausible way of doing so, however, we disagree in that a governmental law seems to be far 'less government' in my eyes than letting individuals make costly decisions and force the government to share the burden.

    Another perfect example of this is the gun control argument which was illustrated in the 2008 Republican primary between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. As mayor of NYC, Giuliani restricted the rights of gun owners and saw a tremendous drop in gun related crimes (we could of course have a separate debate about causality here). Mitt Romney, ever the advocate for less government lambasted this big government intervention and instead as Governor of Massachusets decided to fight crime the 'small-government' way by increasing the size of the police force in turn requiring more taxes. Really now, which solution is 'less-government'?
  • Brad Petersen
    First, where do you draw the line on outlawing "dangerous" activities? Surely, we can find many other activities that drive up health care costs. Should we ban those, too?
    Secondly, smokers die earlier than non-smokers, which means less spending on Social Security and Medicare costs. In other words, if saving money is your goal, perhaps government should encourage smoking (and that doesn't even take into account all the money stolen from smokers via taxes).
    Third, every person should be responsible for their own health care and if they make bad decisions, THEY pay the price. It is simply immoral to force me to pay for the bad decisions of others, whether financially or by restricting my freedom to engage in activities you don't like.
  • See above. We allow restrictions in all walks of life. Whether smoking should be one of those is debatable but I'm more than happy to restrict your right to murder, steal, assault, etc.

    It's a different argument entirely if you advocate a society where government neither restricts your decision to smoke nor your right to take an assault rifle on a plane. I'm not willing to make that leap but if you are, fair enough. I'll admit your argument is wholly consistent. I gladly admit my line is arbitrary, do you? If its immoral for me to want to restrict your right to build a nuclear warhead in your back yard, I'll wear that badge proudly.
  • Brad Petersen
    Adam, I made the mistake of assuming you were familiar with basic libertarian tenets. Libertarians (myself included) believe you have the right to do what you want, so long as you don't infringe on the same rights of others. Therefore, laws against murder, theft and assault are all perfectly consistent with libertarian thinking because all three involve infringing on the rights of others.

    As for assault weapons on planes, this should be entirely up to the airlines. The government should have nothing to do with it -- though I do believe in liability for plane crashes

    As for nuclear warheads, I would say that building one in my backyard poses such a clear danger to the rights of those living nearby that the government can ethically restrict my freedom to do such a thing.

    Smoking poses no such threat (unless, perhaps, you are forced to be near a smoker). Whether someone is allowed to smoke or not should be up to the owner of the property.
  • Much appreciated, your critique is much more cogent and thoughtful than I initially gave credit. I do disagree however that the line between what infringes on the rights of others is perhaps as clear as you make it. I consider myself a libertarian as well but think there are quite a few blurry lines.

    I don't think it's the governments place to restrict actions which don't effect others. Prostitution, gambling, drugs, etc. are all issues in which I support legalization. However, I would argue that second hand smoke is a serious danger to others and that this type of death by a thousand cuts is reason to warrant some sort of intervention.

    How do you feel about drunk driving? Or speeding? I think smoking, drinking and driving and speeding are pretty equitable in that the most immediate danger is to ones self, but there is a clear danger and strong probability of inflicting harm on other individuals by doing so. On all issues I support some sort of intervention.

    Other issues like seat belts and motorcycle helmets are in my mind examples where we should not have restrictions only as long as we accurately place the cost solely on the individual partaking in the action. Unfortunately, this is not even close to being the realistic case and my insurance premiums support careless individuals who require on average much more hospital care based on their short sighted decisions. In lieu of any sense of culpability, not restricting these actions is inflicting on my freedoms by making me subsidize the costs of others. In such cases I support restrictions, but theoretically I much more firmly support personal culpability.

    The nuclear warhead case, however ridiculous sounding, is interesting. How much pollution for instance from a factory would pose a clear danger to the rights of those living nearby? What types of pollution should we restrict, at what line, and at what cost?

    Likewise with respect to weapons. If we can agree that nuclear warheads are a clear danger to those living near by, how about other types of explosives? Napalm? Anti-aircraft missiles? Grenades? Automatic machine guns? Hand guns? Fireworks? I'm not so sure we can draw a strictly quantifiable line even though I'd agree that some on that list should be legal and others shouldn't.

    Thanks for the discussion.
  • danphillips
    What a fascinating discussion! And proof, I might add, of why reconciliation between various parties over how much government is the *right amount* is totally fruitless. Here we have two individuals claiming to be libertarians arguing over which policies would make us safer, freedom be damned.
  • haha, well said and i totally agree. any 'line' we try to objectively draw is open to debate and argument from all angles making defining terms such as liberal/conservative/libertarianism distinguishable only from one another at the margins.

    however, i'm still not sure that i know what a 'true' libertarian would be. if indeed *no* government involvement, and thus *no* infringement on freedoms is the defining feature, why not wear the anarchist badge proudly rather than couch beliefs in a veil of academic sounding 'libertarianism'?
  • danphillips
    Two things, Adam:

    1) Jan Narveson wrote a wonderful book called *The Libertarian Idea,* in which he explains that a libertarian is a person whose ONLY political concern is individual liberty. A true libertarian asks one question, and one question only about a political policy: does it increase individual liberty? If yes, then a libertarian is for it. No, against. A libertarian does not involve himself in the minutia of whether a policy will make us safe, or will it work, or does the majority approve. A libertarian leaves that for the multitudes of statists.

    2) I proudly call myself an anarchist. And I'm hardly an academic!
  • Presumably restricting the freedom of individuals to restrict their own freedoms is the one exception? :0P
  • danphillips
    No exceptions!
  • Political Observer
    Adam:

    While that sounds nice - just let government make the determination of what is right for you since all parties will benefit - let's just take that idea a bit further. What happens if the individual choses to defy the government ban and engages in the undesired behavior (smoking cigarettes)? Do we put that person in jail again for their own good? Who pays for the cost of incarceration - those same taxpayers who are supposed to be benefiting from the law that restricts their freedom to choose for themselves? Or do we just pay for some sort of intervention therapy to help this individual see the "light" and conform to the legal norms of our society. Again who bears that cost?

    Or how about another approach that keeps individual rights and controls cost. If someone chooses to participate in any risky type of behavior that ultimately could lead to higher medical cost - shouldn't they not bear those cost in full? And if they can't than that's life. Sounds harsh but the solution you propose is just as harsh for those who must conform to something they don't believe is in their best interest. Just a thought.
  • Thanks for your insight and thoughtful commentary.

    I wanted to add that I whole heartedly agree with the argument that people should bear the costs of their decisions. Thus, in an idealized economic world you would pay the price for your lung cancer treatment and if you can't afford it society would gladly let you die in the streets. Its harsh, but its the most economically sound answer and you'll find no debate here about that. However, it is utterly hopeless politically and we have to base our decisions around this clearly restricted framework.
  • I strongly sympathize with the 'slippery-slope' argument of letting government determine what is right for you. Yet we accept our government determining that murder is wrong and should be punished. We accept laws against theft, driving drunk, speeding and a plethora of other variably severe crimes that inevitably restrict our individual rights for the 'betterment of society'. (as an aside: financial penalties generally suffice for minor crimes such as speeding and I would argue failure to comply with smoking regulations. Think about where highway budgets would be without speeding tickets).

    It's another argument completely if we want to debate the efficacy of law in general, but I would argue that its pretty clear that we're drawing an arbitrary line between anarchy and a nanny state almost any way you slice it. My line is presumably a bit shifted compared to yours, but so long as you accept any laws, you're admitting a preference for a nanny state to some degree and you're drawing a debatable if not arbitrary distinction by allowing some and not others (as I myself admittedly am as well).

    Making this distinction less arbitrary is an admirable goal, and I hope experts far more knowledgeable than I can do so in order to prevent a drift towards either an anarchistic or totalitarian society.
  • vidyohs
    I think the term and idea of ungovernable is just a new lefty talking point, created specifically to shift focus to resistance to their ideas, and to create the impression that all would be well, the nation governable if only those in opposition would just get out of the way.

    Any ungovernability in reality come from the steady push and shove of socialism down our throats. For opposition leaders to say yes to that crap would be an act of betrayal to all the ideas this nation used as justification for rebellion in the first place, and ideas used as the bedrock of the foundation of this nation.

    Be the party of no, remain the party of no, and don't waver.
  • That’s a critical point: one of the more recent fallacies in this dialogue is the 3d grade spin retort by leftists (like Mr. Friedman) “So, what are your ideas? You can’t just stand there and say ‘no’ to everything!”

    Watch me.

    [And many, including Paul Ryan & others, have some very good ideas which are willifully ignored by the state-run press, slightly different discussion.]

    That is a perfectly legitimate, indeed required, course of action, particularly when the elected leftists are pushing an agenda designed to take away 2 of the most fundamental individual freedoms: freedom to choose how you are medically treated, and freedom to choose your economic destiny.

    It is imperative that you say no to this tyranny. It is literally a life-or-death choice.
  • The choices are few, either accept the painful unwinding of reducing the burden of government, or wait for a collapse.
  • vidyohs
    I liken the USA to a burn victim, a very badly burnt victim.

    Socialism has burned us to the point of near death.

    The sad part of treating a severely burnt victim is that everything you do to help him, to heal him, is going to hurt him. There is no painless way to treat a burn victim.

    Yes, Sam, to heal this country and get it back on track will require pain and suffering, but we either do it; or, we prepare for the pain and suffering seen in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China. Sometimes the pain of the lost soul is far greater than the pain of a physical trauma.
  • Gil
    Kill It With Fire? ;)
  • danphillips
    Here is a story - a parable - for all my minarchist friends on this board:

    50+ years ago I had an uncle who ran a small dairy farm in southwestern Oklahoma. His entire operation consisted of him, his wife, and their four sons (and me in the summer). He was a big bear of a man that was as strong as an ox. He was also the gentlest soul I have ever known.

    One spring he got it in his head that he would try an experiment with one of the newborn calves. Every day he would go out to the meadow, hunt up the calf, and pick it up. He would scoop the calf under its legs and lift it up until he stood straight up, holding the calf in his arms. He reasoned that if he could lift the calf today, then he ought to be able to lift it tomorrow. The calf would protest the indignation, but not very much; and, besides, my uncle was bigger and stronger than the calf, so the calf's protestations were ignored.

    But each day the calf grew bigger. And each day it became harder and harder for my uncle to corral it and lift it up. As the calf began to exceed 300 pounds my uncle began to realize his "lifting" days were numbered.

    One day as he approached, the calf - now grown quite big - charged him, butted my uncle in the chest with its head, knocked my uncle flat on his back, and in its terror ran over my uncle. In the process one of its hooves landed squarely on my uncle's side and broke three ribs. I'll never forget seeing my uncle picking himself off the ground, blood saturating his shirt, clasping his side with his arm while he gasped at me to get his wife to take him to the hospital.

    As big and strong as he had been, my uncle never regained his vitality after the accident. He could never take a full breath without an element of pain.

    My uncle had thought he was in control of the situation. He learned otherwise.

    I leave it to my minarchist friends to interpret this parable in their own fashion.
  • Gil
    Wanker - that's a lame twist on the ancient tale of Milo of Croton
  • danphillips
    Really? I had no idea. Mine is a true story!
  • Gil
    Yeah right!
  • bowenj10
    If you're benefiting from government largess - as most Americans are, in some way or another - then why should you want to shrink the size and scope of the government?
  • JohnK
    Everyone wants to shrink government, as long as the cut does not affect them.
  • There are many ways in which this is simply not true, despite the efforts of the bad guys to make it true.
  • vidyohs
    Addressing the trimming portion of your post and the unwillingness of government to cut back and become the lean thing it was in the early 1800s, I have lived through so-called tax revolts in different sections of the country and observed a forth (Calif Prop 2) from a distance.

    In all four of the upheavals the scenario was exactly the same and it is instructive of how evil works to blow ignorance away.

    The people grow tired of excessive taxation and waste by government and began a strong successful movement to reduce taxes in their state. The state responds with the counter move of telling the people that if taxes are cut, then services and programs will have to be cut.

    Alright, isn't that the point, cut programs and reduce services?

    The problem is that the tax protesters are thinking of doing away with programs such as the "State Bird enumeration", the "Water Lilly Health" program, the "Sex life of the Tsetse Fly" study, etc., in other words all the myriad unnecessary and useless ways that governments can squander money to buy votes.

    The state in every single case has responded that if taxes are reduced then what will be cut and/or reduced will be school spending, emergency services, police funding, and roads & Highway maintenance, in other words all programs vital to the people.

    The state and its employees (who incidentally are prohibited from using their official position to advocate) all rail against people stupid and dangerous enough to cut spending on such vital issues.

    The people, being ignorant, gutless, and protective of their own interests can not see it for the bluff it is, and take the counter position of telling the state and its employees that if they cut those vital services, recall petitions and electioneering against them will ensure it will be the last official act they do; and then carry through on that threat.

    California's Prop 2 is the only one of the four in which the people called the bluff; unfortunately they did not sustain the momentum and carry on to sweep the misfits out of office and install those who would cut the waste and needless programs.

    We do to ourselves what we wouldn't do to our dogs.
  • james bradley
    This is just a case of "Washington Monument Syndrome." An example is discussed here: http://reason.org/news/show/122456.html.
  • vidyohs
    Yes. Thanks for the post, I have been negligent in keeping up with Reason this last three months.
  • I agree.

    Additionally, I'm not sure what "governability" even means. Used in the context it has been used in recently, I think it means "For some darn reason not everyone agrees with me and they will not submit to additional coercions that I believe will result in a better life for them."

    Finally, I like your list of suggestions. That's the thrust of my blog, "Our Dinner Table" which takes its name from Reagan's '89 farewell speech, "All great change begins at the dinner table."

    To that list, I'd like to suggest one more. We should be discussing how to limit the power of special interests in government.
  • Bill Stepp
    What people such as Friedman don't understand is that as government takes on more functions beyond its "core" one of protecting persons and their property, it performs its standard funtions more poorly and at higher cost, and does its newly arrogated jobs poorly (in varying degrees of quality), in addition to crowding out privately-supplied solutions, including innovation and the delivery of these services at lower costs. Mission creep is bad enough in the private sector (and yes it does happen in the private sector, although it is eventually checked by the discipline of the market; it is downright criminal in the State, which has no private sector competition, or at least none that it wouldn't squelch with violence if given the chance and a slug of taxpayers' loot.
  • bowenj10
    What people such as Friedman don't understand is that as government takes on more functions beyond its "core" one of protecting persons and their property

    Has there ever been a government whose core function was the equal protection of persons and their property?

    Vidyohs says that government is "but an agreement amongst men" - which is correct - but fails to note that almost all governments everywhere have always been but an agreement amongst some men (and throughout all of history it's almost always been just men who've made the agreements) to rule over as many as they can in the way that they want (or at least in a way that doesn't seem too terribly bad to them).

    Almost all governments throughout history were created for the express purpose of taking on more functions beyond the core function of protecting the creators of the governments and their property and have always performed their assigned tasks to the detriment of one or more groups of people. So, if governments' standard function is to provide equal protection to persons and their property, then they've always performed this function poorly and at high cost (oppression costs more money than freedom). If, however, governments' standard function is not to provide equal protection to persons and their property, then it shouldn't matter if they perform this function poorly and at high cost because that's not what governments are there to do.
  • carlsoane
    I think Russ makes precisely the right criticism of Friedman. As government takes on more functions it does a worse job at its core functions.

    For example, I am quite happy with my local government. The streets are in good repair. The water service is good. The sheriff's department does a good job. The library system is well run and the local public schools are good (I'm a fan of vouchers, but in upper middle class communities like mine I have seen public schools function well.)

    I am, however, very unhappy with the federal government. It tries to control the globe's climate, to finance the the healthcare of 50% of Americans and regulate the healthcare of all Americans, to protect the citizens of the entire world, to finance 70% of American families buying houses, to provide for retirement for everyone and on and on.

    My local government functions well because the tasks it takes on are focused both geographically and functionally. The federal government already has a huge geographic responsibility. If anything this should make it more focused functionally not less.

    I'm sure I'm oversimplifying your position, but from the brief excerpt above it sounds like you're arguing for acquiescence in the face of oppression and incompetence. I consider that a radically defeatist position that ignores all the improvements in government over the last 250 years.
  • vidyohs
    I deliberately leave it at the level I state, "Government is but an agreement among men", not because the logic and understanding can be taken farther, but because it is enough to state that case and let it percolate.

    Even those governments you cite as being among some men, are still but an agreement among men, supporting men and acquiescing men, but men who tip the majority towards the government.

    Government, any government, always serves at the permission of the people.

    I know this sounds hopelessly naive, and in most situations it is, but our founding fathers proved it is not always the case.
  • cautiousoptimist
    Russ - I think you got this one just about right. The reason so many of us think that government is 'broken' isn't that health care or cap and trade didn't pass, it's that government (especially federal) has demonstrated an absolute inability to even begin to address long term structural problems, much less step back and think long and hard abut what government should actually be doing.

    I know in your podcasts you have talked at length about rational irrationality - and in this context it's become clear that it's rational for politicians to focus on short term policies, no matter how irrational long term impact of the policy, because it is in their best interest. But until Congress has part of their compensation based on long term outcomes of their policies, I'm not sure there's a clear way forward. Sigh.
  • bowenj10
    it's that government (especially federal) has demonstrated an absolute inability to even begin to address long term structural problems, much less step back and think long and hard abut what government should actually be doing.

    You're assuming that politicians are actually there to solve long-term structural problems that matter to the masses. I'd argue that they aren't (except where the interests of the politicians and the masses happen to coincide); that, as Bruce Bueno de Mesquita argues, they're there to serve the needs of those who put and keep them in office (where I disagree with him and Russ is that the "effective public policy" that they think politicians in democracies are enacting is not really all that different in principle from the "private rewards for the cronies" that dictators hand out (what's the difference between why Medicare exists (let alone is expanded upon and managed in a way that hurts private insurers) and why dictators' supporters get Swiss bank accounts?)). I'd argue that the only long-term problem-solving that politicians in this country have ever been engaged in is the problem-solving associated with how they and those like them can gain and hold power. The general welfare of Americans has risen over the years, but I think this is only a side effect of politicians' efforts to gain and hold power. I honestly believe that if many of the politicians currently in power in Washington and the state capitals could treat Americans like many tyrants in history have treated people in their own countries and could actually get away with it then they would.
  • JohnK
    I honestly believe that if many of the politicians currently in power in Washington and the state capitals could treat Americans like many tyrants in history have treated people in their own countries and could actually get away with it then they would.

    Like passing health care 'reform' because those who object don't know what's good for them?
  • ryanszabo
    Although I agree wholeheartedly with the tenor of your post, ie. that Govt needs to get substantially smaller and exit almost all of its multifarious interventions throughout the economy, I can't really see how "Vote as wisely as you can" will have much of an impact. It's difficult to do that when all you are left with is a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd).

    ps. I plead the Higgs defense. I am just trying to point out the basic intractability of the problem, not propose a "solution", or more precisely a series of trade-offs and compromises that can lead to a more free society and less burdensome govt. That I have almost no idea about.
  • Stephan
    Yawn! Always the same story: government is evil. Can someone change the tune? It's getting boring to hear the same song all day long. Russ, do you have anything else on the menu? Look's like you are a much better rap video producer than economist.
  • Dano
    Corrected: "Yawn! Friedman gives the same old story: Government spending is good -- government spending is investment."
  • Brad Petersen
    Wow, Stephan. Such insight you have. Russ makes two key points: 1) liberals continue to pretend that government spending has been cut to the bone -- a plain silly contention that is completely contrary to the facts; and 2) That when government tries to do everything, it gets spread so thin it can't then perform its essential functions, such as providing emergency services. We can quibble, of course, about what's essential, but most people -- some libertarians excepted -- will agree that 911 service is essential.

    This is a lot more substantial than "government is evil." So rather than just sniping with your troll-like comments, why don't you take a shot at refuting Russ's points intead?
  • So rather than just sniping with your troll-like comments, why don't you take a shot at refuting Russ's points intead?

    Because he can't?
  • JohnK
    Why refute points when it is so much easier to attack a straw man?
  • MWG
    "Yawn! Always the same story: government is evil."

    Wow, your reading comprehension must be poor due to your lack of sleep. I don't see anywhere where Russ said govt. was evil. In fact, quite the contrary to you warped view of libertarians, Russ actually called for the govt. to focus only on the things it does well.

    "Can someone change the tune? It's getting boring to hear the same song all day long. Russ, do you have anything else on the menu? Look's like you are a much better rap video producer than economist."

    No one here is forcing you to come to this blog. I hear Krugman and DeLong have excellent blogs. Here, I'll give you the links.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

    http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/
  • neoaustrian
    The trouble is not the tune that Russ is playing. The trouble is that no matter the tune being played, it all sounds the same to the tone deaf.

    Russ says not that government is evil. In point of fact, no entity can be evil for only people have that moral capacity. Russ' point, and it bears repeating over and over until people understand it, is that government has usurped the power of the people in areas where government action is ineffectual.

    There is a fundamental difference in character between those who favor government involvement in citizens' lives and those who are against it. The difference is the will to take responsibility for your own life. Those who favor government involvement are the unwilling of the world.

    The unwilling always want "someone" to "do" something about a problem, but that "someone" is someone else, and "do" is always regulate. The willing are those who claim control over their own lives. America was a country built by the willing. Now, the unwilling wish to unmake the greatness.

    It is much more difficult to be willing than unwilling. That's why there are so many more of the latter than the former.
  • In point of fact, no entity can be evil for only people have that moral capacity.

    Yes, only people have the moral capacity to be evil.

    What government does is give license to evil.
  • I agree. People are evil, not government.

    The ineffectiveness of government to accomplish its established goals is a result of feedback mechanisms in government that don't work as well as feedback in private activity.

    As Sowell points out, government activity is judged on intentions while private activity is judged on results. In government, good intentions are rewarded with more funding, usually with very little concern for the actual result. In private activity, we do not continue to trade with those who do not provide good results.
  • vidyohs
    It is true that some people are evil. It is true that government is but an agreement among men, so therefore, in and of itself, can not be evil without the participation and/or planning by evil people.

    So where does that leave us?
  • Stephan
    Yawn. I'm one of these unwilling. Actually I don't appreciate difficulties. But good to hear there are so many more of my ilk arround. And Yes first we will get rid of your "greatness" project. We will also vote wisely ;-)
  • sandre
    You can tune into a different station. What's your obsession with this blog?
  • Cecil
    Stephen, that's not how I read this post. Russ doesn't say that government is evil, but that we shouldn't have too much of it. Of course there are many who want as little government as humanly possible, and some who only want to cut some programs.

    I'm a generally "liberal" reader who enjoys this blog very much, even when I disagree with or dislike what is said. I'm coming around to their points of view.
  • carpeweb
    Thoughtful as always, Russ,but I think your prescription is probably not sufficient. Do you really think all educated people fall on the same side of this debate? More importantly, do you think all educated people want to stop all the same things? Maybe I'm unwittingly making the case for public choice theory. (I'm sure of the "unwittingly" part.)

    In other words, the solution may be obvious but still far easier said than done. Agreeing on a more limited role of government would, by definition, shrink the role of government. It's far easier for everyone to agree that government is too big than it is for everyone to agree to cut one pet project or program. Too many candidates.

    Best regards,
    Jim
  • sandre
    Glenn Greenwald has an excellent article on the "small government" fraud of the GOP.

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwa...
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: