Cafe Hayek: Please, No Politicians In My Family

« Just for fun | Main | Strange Case of Dr. K and Mr. K» Don Boudreaux

January 04, 2008

Please, No Politicians In My Family

Don Boudreaux

Yesterday's Iowa caucuses sparked the expected oohhing and aahhing about the glories of modern American democracy -- about how "anyone can grow up to become President." I sent this letter yesterday to a local DC radio station:

I'm appalled by everyone who called in today expressing hopes that one day one of their children "might become President of the United States."

My son, Thomas, is ten. I hope that he graduates from college and has a satisfying and lucrative career. But I'd much rather that he be even a janitor or a used-car salesman than become a successful politician. To succeed at politics - especially at the national level - requires duplicity and shamelessness rivaled only by arrogance. For my son to become President he would have to abandon nearly every moral precept that my wife and I try hard now to impart to him: honesty, forthrightness, decency, respect for others, and modesty. We emphatically do not want our son to yearn for power, for to do so would inevitably corrode his humanity.

Thomas, like nearly everyone else in this world, will be fit to rule himself when he is an adult. He is not, and never will be - again like everyone else - fit to rule others, even if those others elect him to do so.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Posted by Don Boudreaux in Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/24794000

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Please, No Politicians In My Family:

Comments

Good stuff.

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Jan 4, 2008 11:03:42 AM

Your phrase that struck me the most is "fit to rule others." That strike me as the result of a more and more powerful, oppressive federal government...as opposed to a less powerful federal government, where he would only have to be "fit to represent others."

Posted by: tw | Jan 4, 2008 11:12:51 AM

"Representing" A in his attempt to rule B is exactly the same thing as just ruling B yourself. The approval of A is just a pretext democracy aims to create.

Posted by: Wojtek | Jan 4, 2008 11:16:33 AM

What Don is saying, I think, is that his son, like A, is not fit to rule B.

Posted by: Wojtek | Jan 4, 2008 11:19:49 AM

Again with the brilliance!

Should i stop advocating that my friends vote for you Professor? It will take some contemplation for me to do that. Since some of the best leaders in history were those who did not want the responsibility they wielded so brilliantly.

1. good society requires rule of law.
2. law must be written, requiring leaders.
3. the sort person that wants the power to write law writes bad law.

That leaves us with bad law being better than no law. And the only way to get out of that is for to force people to write law who don't want to.

Unless somebody can come up with a rule of law system so adept that it can be left unchanged indefinitely. Requiring no further law writers.

ie. the Constitution?

Posted by: Sunny Molini | Jan 4, 2008 12:02:21 PM

That's a real sad commentary. What choices do we have? A ruler or a representative of the people. You have to choose one or the other. In some sense I agree with you because we've allowed the electoral system to be overtaken by the greed of the free market. The results are power hungry greedy leaders... easily corrupted. We are being ruled by money NOT by representatives of the people. Making money is good but it like religion needs to be separated from the state.

The problem is many see money as free speech. Allowing money to influence politics gets you rulers like Bush. When the people and democracy are working we get leaders who represent the people.

A few things that make a person more likely a good leader is coming from meager means, not being a part of a political dynasty and ideally having served in the military. The current system doesn't promote such potential leaders

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 4, 2008 12:02:33 PM

Forget Hillary's high negatives, John Edwards is the most repulsive candidate to mean.

His rhetoric last night bordered on paranoid when he discusssed "corporate greed" and "taking back washington" from being reliant on money. It's genuinely sad that culture has taken such a populist misnomer.

Posted by: Will | Jan 4, 2008 12:03:43 PM

Don, I'm not sure if your are just cynical beyond belief or suffering from "hyper-libertarianism". Either way, our system of government is designed to have a president and commander in chief-and, as you have pointed out to others about our country's economic success with a capitalist system and not relative failure, it generally works pretty well. As a manager I have to pander, compromise and be pretty arrogant in making my decisions to but that's just the way it works.

Posted by: tiger | Jan 4, 2008 12:06:54 PM

Don, you've obviously never heard of Ron Paul.

Posted by: Franz | Jan 4, 2008 12:23:39 PM

Well said, Don.

Sunny, given that the name of this blog is Cafe Hayek, I'm going to go out on a limb and say Don does not believe law is written. Legislation is written, while law evolves.

Does anyone else find the situation we are in very odd? People actually defend the people and institutions who would violently attack them or their property for no good reason. Maybe these attitudes are just ingrained in our brains by genetics.

muirgeo is at least either confused (greed never existed before markets, huh?), or just trolling.

Posted by: G | Jan 4, 2008 12:26:51 PM

Muirgeo, money is not only definitely speech; it's the most reliable kind of speech. The less a message costs, the less discrimnating people are when deciding to back that message.

Posted by: Billy | Jan 4, 2008 12:55:09 PM

"I agree with you because we've allowed the electoral system to be overtaken by the greed of the free market. The results are power hungry greedy leaders... easily corrupted. We are being ruled by money NOT by representatives of the people. Making money is good but it like religion needs to be separated from the state.

"The problem is many see money as free speech. Allowing money to influence politics gets you rulers like Bush. When the people and democracy are working we get leaders who represent the people."

This is just a bizarre statement. First, the reason it costs a lot of money to run for office is because the US is the 4th largest country in the world, with a population of over 300 million. It costs a lot of money to cover that territory and reach that many people. The smaller the election, the less its cost. Decentralization is the only real way to reduce the importance of money in politics.

That said, the idea behind those statements is probably that spending limits, public funding, etc. are a good idea. I can't find any such study with a quick Google search, but there must be a political scientist out there who's published a paper on the relationship between the level of campaign finance regulation and the level of satisfaction with politicians. I'd be shocked if there was any causal link between those two (except maybe in the other direction; people call for spending limits when they become cynical, thinking it will help solve the problem).

I also somehow doubt that the modern-day United States is the only example of a place in which "power hungry leaders" exist. I'd love to hear of any place, at any time in which rulers were generally not considered to be "power hungry."

Posted by: Adam | Jan 4, 2008 1:28:49 PM

Either this is one of the saddest commentaries I have ever read or I just don’t get it.

Here is a professor telling us that our future governments are going to be so irreversibly corrupt and power hungry so that you must be irreversibly corrupt an power-hungry to even aspire a leadership so that he does not wish his son and presumably his students even getting close to politics. Is it so? Pure innocence and complete humanity is what reigns in the university?

Of course I could never be able to guarantee that any of my daughters would be fit to rule others but I swear that I sincerely believe that my wife and me have been able to make them better to rule others than most of those out there ruling others and I most definitely hope that all fathers and professors also see this as their mission, even if prima facie it could qualify as mission impossible.

Do you just sit back and relax until hugo-chavezes take over the world?

Posted by: Per Kurowski | Jan 4, 2008 2:48:16 PM

EVERYONE!

Stop feeding the troll.

Muirgeo is out of his cage again I see.

Posted by: Jon | Jan 4, 2008 3:03:47 PM

To those who acknowledge a Creator it can be pointed out that He did not create us with the intention that we would “rule over” one another. The fact that we have a desire to do so is a corruption of the original design.

Many people seem to believe that the more enlightened persons have a duty to rule over the less enlightened persons; to save them from themselves among other reasons. I would argue that Don places himself in the category of “more enlightened” by his recognition that this desire to rule over other persons is a dysfunction that is best avoided.

Those who argue that people need to be ruled over are either misusing or misunderstanding the notion of ruling or have yet to come to a maturity of thought that allows them to see the inherent evil of this. To some this will seem an arrogant statement – so be it.

Posted by: Lenny | Jan 4, 2008 4:30:29 PM

Me too, Don.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jan 4, 2008 4:42:15 PM

The problem is a lack of rule of law that constrains politicians. Similar to the Underpants Gnomes on South Park, most politicians operate as follows:

1. Take more taxes or deficit spend more to create government programs
2. ?
3. Get reelected in the name of creating new government programs

The Iraq war was a total failure of constraints. The law should require a super majority in both houses to wage any war, not an open ended resolution.

Tax collections should be restricted to a % of GDP, and spending as well, thus hopefully forcing Government to spend it wisely not just keep piling it on.

Posted by: mcwop | Jan 4, 2008 5:03:10 PM

Adam: democrats, in general support campaign finance caps, in part, because they, unlike the republicans, have historically relied upon unionized workers as campaign volunteers and were never as vulnerable to things like per person contribution caps, or campaign finance "reform" in general. My guess is that the situation would be reversed, if campaigns were forced/asked to report volunteer hours at minimum wage, although enforcement, like with current contributions is problematic.

Posted by: nordsieck | Jan 4, 2008 5:04:53 PM

Stop feeding the troll.

Muirgeo is out of his cage again I see.

Posted by: Jon

Jon.

You best get use to trolls like me because based on the Iowa turn out there's a tidal wave of us gunning to take our country back.

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 4, 2008 6:31:10 PM

Posted by: Will

Will,

It's not paranoia when thy really are out to get you. Hard working Americans are sick of people with money buying politicians, tilting the table in their favor and usurping democracy.

What money is doing to our markets and are democracy is a shame. How people like yourself see no problem blows me away. I can't figure what you stand for. Its not free markets, its not diffusion of power, it's not democracy, it's not self reliance or personal responsibility, it's not small government .... so what the heck is it?

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 4, 2008 6:38:38 PM

"2. law must be written, requiring leaders.
3. the sort person that wants the power to write law writes bad law."

The second premise is not necessarily true. All you need is a mechanism for selecting legislators that doesn't rely on power lust, e.g., selection by lot. It works pretty well with jurors, who collectively wield at least as much power as congressmen or assemblymen.

Posted by: M. Hodak | Jan 4, 2008 6:50:09 PM

Muirgeo, money is not only definitely speech; it's the most reliable kind of speech.

Posted by: Billy

Billy you're free to believe what you want. But to most, money in politics is all about bribery, influence peddling and coercion.
Bill Gates has just has much right to e-mail, write, call or talk directly to politicians as I do and no more.

Calling money "free-speech" is as Orwellian as claiming some people are more equal then others.

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 4, 2008 7:33:47 PM

you because we've allowed the electoral system to be overtaken by the greed of the free market.

Strawman.

Muigeo, the more you write the lower my estimation of you.

Why do you come around here?

Posted by: Sam Grove | Jan 4, 2008 8:10:06 PM

Don's comments raise the question: what would the world be like if there were a) no politicians and/or b) no government. Each could be separate scenarios, i.e. it is possible to have government without politicians, but not sure it is possible to have politicians without government.

Have these scenarios already been written about (in the context of populations of the current size)?

Posted by: Mark Seery | Jan 4, 2008 8:47:34 PM

It costs a lot of money to cover that territory and reach that many people. The smaller the election, the less its cost. Decentralization is the only real way to reduce the importance of money in politics.

Money will always be a part of politics -- and centralization is an illusion.

I helped a retired friend run for city council several years ago. Under election laws, contributions were limited to about $350 -- and his personal (personal and family) to about $10,000. He put in the full $10K, and the rest was raised in contributions averaging $50 all the way up to election day. He spent every dime, got elected, and the campaign still owed him $10k.

Four years later -- he's up for re-election. The campaign coffers are full -- he's been repaid his $10k -- and almost all contributions are for the full legal limit. This is six months before the election.

Money is always going to be important. For all the wrong reasons.

Posted by: SheetWise | Jan 4, 2008 10:28:38 PM

Hi Don,

I think this is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you discourage honest, liberty-loving individuals from entering politics, how do you expect political institutions to change for the better? Societal collapse? Violent revolution? It seems unlikely that the state will whither away from benign neglect.

Posted by: Christopher Rasch | Jan 4, 2008 10:54:50 PM

If you discourage honest, liberty-loving individuals from entering politics, how do you expect political institutions to change for the better?

If you discourage honest, liberty-loving individuals from becoming thieves, how do you expect thieves to change for the better?

Posted by: SheetWise | Jan 4, 2008 11:50:36 PM

I think it's hilarious that Murthaduck ("the children they've killed in cold blood") believes that money corrupts politicians, but wants to give them another half-trillion or so dollars a year (in the form of the US health care system) to corrupt, just so Murthaduck won't have to pay for a colonoscopy itself.

Posted by: brotio | Jan 5, 2008 12:11:15 AM

But to most, money in politics is all about bribery, influence peddling and coercion.
Bill Gates has just has much right to e-mail, write, call or talk directly to politicians as I do and no more.

What "most" believe has no bearing on what it actually is. You're right about you and Gates. You both have, ideally at least, an unrestricted right to do so. Yours is just more limited by your means than his. There's nothing Orwellian about recognizing that spending conveys a message, and a more reliable one than mere words, at that. Ever tell anyone to put his money where his mouth is?

Have you figured out yet how giving more power to government is going to cure corruption in government?

Posted by: Billy | Jan 5, 2008 12:32:08 AM

The clearest example of why money=free-speech is the case of Oprah's support of Obama. She gives him her time (which is quite valuable) and goes out to speak about his campaign. That's fine with me, but if the law was to limit contributions to say 350 dollars, one would then have to compute how much of Oprah's time corresponds to 350 dollars (10 minutes?) and that's all the time she would have to "freely" speak about Obama.

Posted by: Unit | Jan 5, 2008 2:02:18 AM

muirgeo is correct! We need a Contitutional amendment guaranteeing the freedom of trade. With Congress prohibited from controlling businesses, businesses will not be able to profit from buying Congresscritters. Many sources of corruption will disappear. It's a brilliant plan, muirgeo. Thank you for suggesting it.

Posted by: Russ Nelson | Jan 5, 2008 3:39:38 AM

Russ Nelson,

Thanks! Now I can go to sleep with a smile on my face :)

Posted by: brotio | Jan 5, 2008 4:21:35 AM

I'm not sure if I agree from muirgeo argues from but as far as I'm concerned there are really two choices - Monarchy and Democracy. Actually Democracy is based on the notion that no one person should have unlimited power and rulers can be displaced as a matter of course. However I agree others who point out of the shortcomings of what really goes on in modern Democracies and it isn't very reassuring. But I don't really see how a Monarchy is really that crash hot either. Some family owns heap of land, they get to make the rules, other people rent some land and abide by the rules, if they don't like they can leave . . .

Posted by: Gil | Jan 5, 2008 5:00:58 AM

Bravo, Don.

Ruling is a dirty job that only attracts more
dirt. My kids will not soil their hands on it
either.

Not to worry tho. Soon, no one but the
absolute worst will want to go there.

http://djomama.blogspot.com/2006/12/first-world-government-junk-bonds-on.html

Posted by: jomama | Jan 5, 2008 7:30:42 AM

Could someone suggest HOW we could get from a million (billion ?) page legislated law to an evolved law?
The fact that none of us has read or knows about the millions of rules that have been legislated, yet manage to live good decent lives is a fairly good indication that the legislation is only marginally useful (not to say necessary).
Perhaps getting everyone to feel the same way Don does about politicians would evolve the system in the direction of less legislation and more scope for unregulated action.

Posted by: John Reed | Jan 5, 2008 9:15:16 AM

Gil, there is a huge latitude in freedom in the description you give for democracy. For example in the us, you can go into most businesses with no government approval. In oother countries, a license is needed.

Posted by: Russ Nelson | Jan 5, 2008 9:36:34 AM

Billy,

"...money is not only definitely speech; it's the most reliable kind of speech. The less a message costs, the less discrimnating people are when deciding to back that message."

Good point!

Muirgeo,

The problem with your position on money in the political system is that you are not viewing the problem with sufficient perspective. The big problem is that a political system, any political system, only exists because there is money to be made. A political system exists to profit through the exploitation of the non-political by the political class. So your proposal is to take away ordinary people's right to defend themselves against the aggression of the political class. Using money to influence the political class is the only effective weapon that ordinary people have. Its a damn shame that they are forced to use their earnings to defend themselves, and now you want to take away their right to do so.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 5, 2008 9:53:11 AM

Brotio,
LOL.
muirduck does his own colonoscopy and has done so for long that vasoline for his head is no longer necessary. The man is on intimate eye ball relationship with his own prostrate.

He carries the description "caveman" to a whole new plane.

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 5, 2008 11:04:06 AM

So Randy should Bill Gates be able to walk up to a senator and offer $1,000,000 if he passes some bill that makes MAC's less competitive?

How about a pharmaceutical lobbyist funneling money to congressman to get the Medicare D drug bill passed with a no-compete law?

Are these examples of the free market?

Because if these are examples of the free market and proper use of the government then you have no right to complain of ANY legislation that politicians pass. It's no different if hundreds of thousands of people each give their congressmen $1 dollar each to pass a new tax law that increases progressivity or to get national health care.

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 5, 2008 11:15:21 AM

.....if he passes some bill that makes MAC's less competitive?

.....funneling money to congressman to get the Medicare D drug bill passed with a no-compete law

Are these examples of the free market?

Although I'm sure you've been given this answer a hundred times in this forum, here it is again. In a truly free market:

- a senator will not have the power to make Macs less or more expensive.

- govt. will not be running a Medicare program that funnels money into big pharma.

Let's see if you manage to understand this simple idea this time.

Posted by: raja_r | Jan 5, 2008 11:56:01 AM

Murigeo,

Re; "...should Bill Gates be able to walk up to a senator and offer $1,000,000 if he passes some bill that makes MAC's less competitive?

I'd say that a person of integrity would avoid all dealings with the political class except for self defense. The amount of money involved is irrelevant. Mr. Gates giving millions, or a party member giving a single dollar, if done for the purpose of profiting via the exploitation of the non-political class, makes both members of the political class. Of course, in an environment where the best way to get ahead is to become a member of the political class, it is to be expected that a large percentage of society will first abandon integrity, and then eventually, to maintain their self respect, rationalize that being a member of the political class is a thing of value and an element of integrity.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 5, 2008 1:01:32 PM

In a truly free market:

- a senator will not have the power to make Macs less or more expensive.

- govt. will not be running a Medicare program that funnels money into big pharma.

Let's see if you manage to understand this simple idea this time.
Posted by: raja_r

Raja,

We are not talking about your make-believe-world. We are talking abut the real world were no such thing as a free market exists.

The question is money free speech... the answer is NO when its used directly to influence elections and policy. America gets that. You don't. The next elections will show you that democracy supersedes and dictates how markets will work.

The economy exist for the people and NOT the other way around. Since there is no such thing as a free market and since we don't have the libertarian government you want most Americans would agree that money is NOT free speech and its influence needs to be kept out of politics. Thus, in summation, your simple idea is irrelevant and doesn't address the issue of money, free speech and politics.

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 5, 2008 3:54:00 PM

LMAO @ "He carries the description "caveman" to a whole new plane." - Vidyohs

Vidyohs,
Thanks for helping me start the day with a laugh!

Posted by: brotio | Jan 5, 2008 3:54:49 PM

I'd say that a person of integrity would avoid all dealings with the political class except for self defense.

Posted by: Randy

Randy,

Do I need to remind you that there are lots of people with no integrity but lots of money? That's why there needs to be laws with big penalties for the donors and the politicians who sell out our democracy for personal gain.

But of course you're a libertarian who wants a self organized system so you don't want laws you just want people of integrity not to take advantage of your open system...... you don't see a problem with human nature and your view of utopia? It's pie-in-the-sky Randy. What you want doesn't work. The next best thing is good laws made by politicians directly accountable to the people. That's almost what we have and it works pretty good.

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 5, 2008 4:01:23 PM

Muirgeo,

"Do I need to remind you that there are lots of people with no integrity but lots of money? That's why there needs to be laws..."

Of course... and lots of people with no integrity and not a lot of money. I think that there need to be laws against the use of politics to exploit the non-political.

"...you don't want laws you just want people of integrity not to take advantage of your open system..."

There is no such thing as a person of integrity who takes advantage. A person of integrity believes in free exchange of value for value. What I want is for the political class to stop exploiting the non-political. That is, I want a mostly voluntary government.

"What you want doesn't work. The next best thing is good laws made by politicians directly accountable to the people. That's almost what we have and it works pretty good."

Non-democratic forms of government are openly exploitive. In a monarchy, one clearly understands who is collecting the rent and who is paying it - that is, who are the owners and who are the tenants. Democratic forms of government are still exploitive, they just spend a lot more on propaganda to confuse the issue as to who the owners and tenants are. This is not a place where "the people" are the owners, its just a place where a lot of investment is made in getting "the people" to believe that they are the owners. Does it work pretty good? Yes it does. The people seldom complain, and if they do complain they complain about the people that the owners want them to complain about rather than the owners themselves, and of course, the rents just keep pouring in to the political class.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 5, 2008 6:42:10 PM

Trying to keep money out of politics is like trying to stop the rain with one's bare hands, talk about utopia!

Maybe Muirgeo would like to move to Venezuela? where Chavez seems to want to get money out of "daily life"?

In fact, the political system is a lot like the free market, but it's a 'pork' market. There's a demand for 'pork' and a supply of 'pork'. The demand continually soars because the demanders don't individually pay, while the supply stays pretty much stable. As a result both quantity and cost of pork shoot up.

Posted by: Unit | Jan 5, 2008 8:26:12 PM

"Trying to keep money out of politics is like trying to stop the rain with one's bare hands..."

Maybe in fact worse than that. There was a time when there was no money in sport. Sport was virtuous. It was not tainted by money. The only problem was that the only people that could afford to participate in any serious way were those that already had much money. This is why professional sports is so loved by the "working" class. Those that are old enough remember why professional sport was such an innovation. With money comes the incentive to cheat. No question. But the alternative is worse - an effective denial of franchise. Professional activities provide the means by which those that do not already have the luxury of leisure can pursue things which are important to them.

Posted by: mark seery | Jan 5, 2008 8:37:57 PM

The sports analogy is similarly to the Democracy/Monarchy dilemma. In Democracy the average person has a chance to have their say even if the system is prone to corruption. In Monarchies there is no similar corruption because it's a privately owned estate and the owners can do whatever they want. Yet in Monarchies the average person has no say. It hard to see why average people would go back to an anonymous system even if it is deemed more 'honest' and compatible with Libertarian values of private ownership.

Posted by: Gil | Jan 5, 2008 11:07:09 PM

"The economy exist for the people and NOT the other way around."

This comments reflects a serious misunderstanding of what "the economy" is. The economy isn't a product of human design or the result of conscious, deliberate planning to create "an economy." What we refer to when we refer to "the economy" is the behaviour of individuals as they produce wealth and exchange it with others. The economy cannot exist without people, but neither can people exist (except as hermits who do not interact) without an economy.

Posted by: Adam | Jan 6, 2008 12:21:33 AM

I would agree with Mr Boudreaux if it was not for the fact that if all those who possess "honesty, forthrightness, decency, respect for others, and modesty" decide not to enter politics, we are going to end up governed by the worst examples society can produce. His position may be very honourable (and probably right), but I would rather have honest people (and I bet his son will end up more economically-literate than your average Joe) try to rule us (even if it corrupts them in the end) than leave government to the dishonest (and economically illiterate). Government is too important to be left to others.

Posted by: Frederick Davies | Jan 6, 2008 9:09:32 AM

The economy isn't a product of human design or the result of conscious, deliberate planning to create "an economy." What we refer to when we refer to "the economy" is the behaviour of individuals as they produce wealth and exchange it with others. The economy cannot exist without people, but neither can people exist (except as hermits who do not interact) without an economy.

Posted by: Adam

Adam,

You are simply wrong. There are economies as designed in Mexico, Norway, China ect... that are all "designed" in large part by those countries political structures with massive variation in their results.

Quite simply how we set up our government has dramatic effects on the success of the economy and the relative distribution of that success. And much of the economic success translates into human rights "success".

The economy is just one part of our society that is molded both by individuals preferences and political actions. So again since this is a democracy the rules by which we run our economy should be decided by the people and not by elitist with access to politicians via their wealth. It's OK for people to be wealthy. It's not OK for people with wealth to be able to disproportionately bend the rules further in their favor.

The average American understands this and this is why you are going to see a rise in populism over the next decade. It's the peoples country and economy NOT the elitist.

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 6, 2008 10:39:28 AM

"For my son to become President he would have to abandon nearly every moral precept that my wife and I try hard now to impart to him: honesty, forthrightness, decency, respect for others, and modesty."

Getting back to this point I'm not sure Ron Paul, Huckabee, Obama or Chris Dodd are any of these things. I think this statement reflects a disregard for the need for leaders with out offering any rational alternative.

There is an alternative. We are a country of laws. Our economic success depends critically on the rule of law. Law should likewise be used to severely punish those that undermine the public trust through bribery , coercion or other means. It's pretty simple to me.

There are a lot of crooks in politics and a lot of crooks on Wall Street. Enforce the laws and put the crooks away for very long times and then you'll start to see leaders that have the qualities we want.

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 6, 2008 10:46:49 AM

That is exactly what politicians are expected to do.. it's funny that one of main the points of Ron Paul campaign is that the politicians don't respect the law - the constitution....

Posted by: andy | Jan 6, 2008 11:00:09 AM

"we are going to end up governed by the worst examples society can produce.
Posted by: Frederick Davies | Jan 6, 2008 9:09:32 AM"

I would submit, Sir, that in general this happened long long ago.

The question is simply this; Can a person live in a sewer and not be coated with filth?

Followed by the obvious question: If a person volunteers to enter the sewer and is sent there can we assume that he sees something in the sewer of benefit enough to cause him to overlook the circumstances of his living?

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 6, 2008 11:24:53 AM

"If a person volunteers to enter the sewer and is sent there can we assume that he sees something in the sewer of benefit enough to cause him to overlook the circumstances of his living?"

Business and government are competing forces. They both have partisan supporters who see nothing but evil in the other. They both have internal incentives to become sewers. They are both regulated. They both in theory are improved by competition. If the wise and virtuous refuse to participate in either, then that which they refuse to participate in will lack a certain form of competition.

The potential or actual sewer of politics is no worse than the potential of actual sewer of business. The compelling questions remain what role should each play, and is either delivering something compelling. As long as each is, then any expectation of perfection is an enemy of the good. Nothing in this world is perfect.

Posted by: mark seery | Jan 6, 2008 2:02:21 PM

Governments have come in many shapes and sizes through history, but the one thing they have all had and still have in common is taxation. The obvious conclusion is that taxation is the purpose of government. Maximizing revenue. Collecting the rent. These are the purpose. All the rest is rationalization and propaganda.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 6, 2008 4:36:48 PM

Anyone who asserts that complete abolition of government / politicians / taxes ultimately has to address the question of whether there is such a thing as public goods or not.

Anyone have an argument/pointer to an argument that there is no such thing as a public good?

Posted by: Mark Seery | Jan 6, 2008 5:48:35 PM

"You are simply wrong. There are economies as designed in Mexico, Norway, China ect... that are all "designed" in large part by those countries political structures with massive variation in their results."

Muirgeo, that's incorrect. The economies in these places are not designed - they are regulated. There's an enormous difference. Design suggests deliberate creation, whereas regulation involves affecting that which we cannot control.

Just as human action can influence the weather (and climate), so can it influence the economy. But we do not create the weather, any more than we create the economy. Even in the Soviet Union, the central government could only plan and legislate but it could not "design" the economy - the black market thrived whatever the bureaucrats' efforts.

"Quite simply how we set up our government has dramatic effects on the success of the economy and the relative distribution of that success."

It also has dramatic effects on the overall level of success, which in the case of the economy refers to the total amount of wealth. I don't think there's much use belabouring the trite point that North Korea is a much more egalitarian society than the United States but also much less desirable as a place to live.

Posted by: Adam | Jan 6, 2008 6:44:31 PM

"Business and government are competing forces."
Posted by: mark seery | Jan 6, 2008 2:02:21 PM"

I dunno Mark, how do you come by this belief? That is very puzzeling.

As a matter of fact I think it is very far fetched at best and dead wrong most certainly.

It would seem to me obvious that no business can compel patronization of itself. The only way a business can sink into becomeing a sewer is by purchasing government support and force in its favor.

Ergo, without government it is not possible for a business to become a monoply or to coerce anyone.

Businesses don't compete with government, they co-opt government by purchasing influential members of government.

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 6, 2008 8:00:16 PM

Adam,
Muirduck simply can not grasp the reality that he is a market, just as you are a market, and I am a market.

There are over 6 billion of us.

Yep, we are going to 'design' and or regulate in a way that...............no, shit, I guess that is not true either........if only the socialist evangelicals would wake the f..k up and see how far off in fantasy land they are.

Business is not our problem, government is.
Markets are not anyone's problem, government is.
The marketplace is not our problem, government is.

Nothing in the world more simple than that.

My friend market came by the other day and looked at my mountain bike that I haven't been riding much lately. He asked me if I'b be interested in selling it.......bingo a marketplace was created.....I, market, thought it over and rejected the offer....bingo the marketplace closed.

Government was no where around, and certainly not in competition with us as we conducted business.

Christ, how much mo' simple do it gotta be?

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 6, 2008 8:10:27 PM

Vidyohs,

I agree that most monopolies are created by government, therefore most businesses can not compel patronage. But this was not the type of sewer to which I referred and to which I perceived was being referred.

If the issue is that governments mandate that people participate in non-voluntary transactions then there is no disagreement among us. If the issue is that mandating non-voluntary transactions is a moral wrong, then in principle I agree with you (as long as you propose a solution to the public good problem I stated before).

If the issue is a general discussion about sewers of all types then businesses, many of which I have worked in, are absolutely sewers. Rife with an incumbent management class protecting its interest through the suppression of truth, through lies and misleading statements to customers, and sometimes through bribery and corruption. Not everyone in business behaves all the time, in all the ways I state above, but all those behaviors exist, and all the incentives to those behaviors exist; as much as the incentive to cheat in sports exist. If it is then asserted that the market automatically corrects for such errors, well even without contesting the point, all that has been established is that there is a correction mechanism, not that there was not a sewer in the first place.

Of course we are using the term "sewer" as if there is some precise meaning to this term. Without suggesting which is the greatest of the sewers, all I am asserting is that both businesses and governments have incentives to lie, cheat, mislead, and deceive, and as a result, at least on occassion, both do.

If your definition of sewer is as simple as a system that mandates non-voluntary participation, then I imagine we largely agree. But that is not my perception of how the term sewer was being used in this thread.

Posted by: mark seery | Jan 6, 2008 9:18:51 PM

Mark Seery,

The idea of a public good seems to me much like the idea of the holy trinity. That is, an idea that has truth and meaning to the faithful, but little of either to the more skeptical. I think that in practice the classification of something as a public good is a method used by the political class to justify doing what it wants to do all along - that is, create a program from which it can skim a percentage of the revenue stream.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 6, 2008 9:51:30 PM

Well said Randy.

Mark seery,
I see that we do agree on most basics but on this issue we still separate.

I too know of businesses that are virtual sewers. But you see sir, again I have to come back and beat this same drum.....that is not something I have to deal with because it is a business and we have agreed that they can't compel me to patronize them or associate with them in any way. So they are free to be a sewer and it won't flap my cap in anyway shape or form.

If, as you said, you found yourself in a private sewer then I hope you had the good sense to remove yourself promptly.

Now, if that sewer of a business was a sewer partly due to its interpretation of government regulations, we are right back to the fact that government is the problem. Furthermore, even as a sewer the only way such can affect me is with government support and cooperation.

Again, sir, I believe you need to stop focusing your wailing and anger on things that you can control, don't deal with businesses that are sewers, and focus them on the one thing most difficult to control....your relationship to government.

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 6, 2008 10:13:08 PM

Hi Randy,

I agree the concept of a public good is abused. Some people simply observe they want something to happen, declare it a public good, and don't even consider the formal definition of what a public good is.

Let us consider the understood meaning of a public good, i.e. something that is problematic in the context of a price system. Classic examples in economics text books include such things as lighthouses, fireworks, police, defense, etc. All of these benefit many and can be problematic (within the context of the cost and availability of technology at any given point in time) to collect usage fees. Do you believe that all things a community need can be provided by a price system?

No let us consider examples which are definitely in a grey area. Healthcare. Healthcare is an example of something that can definitely be provided by a price system. However, if there are people in a community which can not afford a target level of healthcare within the constraints of their budget, then someone is likely to declare that a public good. An arguable claim.

Posted by: mark seery | Jan 6, 2008 10:14:59 PM

Vidyohs,

There is no wailing and anger. I have made an observation. An observation you have not disagreed with. Please refer to my previous posts were I have defended imperfect systems as being better than the alternative. I embrace and support the business community, of which I am a participant, and have never said anything to the contrary. I was simply making the point that it is not accurate to present the picture that all people in government are somehow corrupt and that all people in business are somehow virtuous. Economists well understand the impact of incentives on peoples behavior; be it in business, government, sports, relationships, or whatever...

Now we might both agree that there is a moral dilemma presented by an entity that has a monopoly on violence and liberty and uses that monopoly to extract rents. To which I have presented the long outstanding challenge of public goods. Get rid of the public good problem and we are done - there is no need for government, the political class, or the moral dilemma.

Posted by: mark seery | Jan 6, 2008 10:32:52 PM

Prof. Boudreaux's posting is cynical, illogical, pointless and unnecessarily self-indulgent. For almost a year now, I've enjoyed Cafe Hayek and other things that Prof's Don and Russ do and the other stimulating links they point us at. I simply don't believe that Dr. Don authored this -- except, perhaps, as a joke or an experiment.

There will be at most 20-25 different presidents in any American's lifetime. So, it doesn't sound especially intelligent to groom your child to compete with 350 million others for a max. of 8 years in that position. The only worthwhile point to be made in this connection is that, in theory, ANYBODY could become POTUS.

Unconditionally damning ALL politicians -- or even just those at the national level --
is as useful as condemning all academics -- or even just economics professors. Especially without providing evidence that even a majority are corrupt.

Using loaded words like "ruler" or "yearning for power" recklessly, irresponsibly overlooks that the US has representative government. That is, it relies upon people, whom we call politicians, to compete for the right/honor/opportunity to represent and serve their fellow citizens.

Ideally, every citizen takes an interest in how their country is governed and participates actively. But, few have the time or inclination to do so. Fortunately, some folks do specialize in this area. (Cafe Hayek denizens are frequently exposed to the benefits of specialization.) I sincerely believe that all political specialists would benefit from a strong grasp of economic principles. People like Prof's Boudreaux and Roberts are helping to make that happen and should be proud of it.

Does nobody else see the irony in politicians being labelled "arrogant" by Prof. Boudreaux when he routinely sends letters to newspapers promoting his views to the American public? I respect Prof. Boudreaux for taking the time to "educate" his fellow citizens and generally agree with his views. BUT, I am fairly certain he doesn't have a monopoly on sound ideas.

I'm not claiming that politics is not a dirty business nor that everybody should counsel their children to seek political office. More can probably be done to reduce political corruption.

But, I am saying that Americans rely on their politicians and benefit from encouraging the "right kind" of people to seek election. The challenges, the controversies arise when deciding who has the right stuff. Cafe Hayek continuously exposes the differing views about what the right stuff actually is let alone who has it.

Posted by: TSowell Fan | Jan 6, 2008 10:56:25 PM

Mark,
Okay, we agree. Only we say approximately the same things in different words and with different degrees of conviction.

My whole point being that Walmart, Sears, Krogers, Macy's, Autozone, Haliburton, Archer Daniels Midlands, or Exxon were not the ones that sent thugs in uniforms to the Branch Davidian compound near Waco and ultimately kill over 83 people whose only crime was wanting to be left alone and who actively defended that right; nor did those businesses target Randy Weaver and his family in Idaho.

Those businesses do not hire and train thugs to act like military and break into people's homes at night, homes they haven't even taken the time to ensure was the proper target, and kill innocent people who react to an armed invasion with fear and self defense.

Etc etc.

Yeah businesses have the potential to be corrupt, but they are powerless without government.

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 7, 2008 6:22:13 AM

"Unconditionally damning ALL politicians -- or even just those at the national level --
is as useful as condemning all academics -- or even just economics professors. Especially without providing evidence that even a majority are corrupt.
Posted by: TSowell Fan | Jan 6, 2008 10:56:25 PM"

I won't quibble with anything else you say above, but to this paragraph my answer is:
I know that lightening strikes once in awhile and someone is elected to national office without holding any lower posts. It happens though infrequent, very infrequent.

That means that the vast majority have gone through the political process and climbed the ladder of political offices. Which means that the majority have had to involve themselfs in trading off this for that support, and that for this support.

Here is my humnble opinion, though there may be those that go to national office unencumbered by allegiance to anyone but their constituents, if they seek re-election more than once, you bet your ass they have sold out to the system. The system will win, it has always won, and it always will win.

Take for instance the blunt truth telling Dr. Ron Paul. he knows the score in D.C., he knows much that he is not talking about and he is never going to talk about.

Power corrupts, seeking power corrupts, having power corrupts, and the threat of losing power corrupts even more.

Going with the odds, calling all politicians corrupt is a pretty safe thing.

Compare the reaction of Congress to the petty (probably made-up) offenses of James Traficant, to the reaction of congress to the known corruption of congressman Jackson of Louisiana (caught with bribe money in his refrigerator and his august presence on videotape).

Perciles (680BC) said, "you may ignore politics, but politics will not ignore you."

We can ignore and marginalize academics, businessmen, Moms, Dads, Scout leaders, and preachers who are corrupt. We can stay away from them and isolate them by simply ignoring them.

But, government comes with goons, sometimes in the night and sometimes boldly in daylight, and always with the greatest show of force to instill fear and compliance.
And we let it.

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 7, 2008 7:15:26 AM

"But, government comes with goons, sometimes in the night and sometimes boldly in daylight, and always with the greatest show of force to instill fear and compliance."

When I read comments like that I can't help but think 'What are you? A drug dealer or something?!' I don't know where people like vidyohs and brotio think they would been if they were born 500 or more years ago. Are yous supposed that being self-realiant and industrious you would have found favor with the ruling monarch of the day and been ennobled for your efforts or something? Somehow since most of us are descending from peasantry I prefer to have a malleable system where you can a say.

Posted by: Gil | Jan 7, 2008 8:25:28 AM

Mark,

An important fact when talking with Vidyohs is to know he was an agent of the government for 20 years plus and now collects a government pension and has lifetime government provided healthcare.

Read his post above and know the facts I just stated and that's pretty much all you need to know about the him.

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 7, 2008 9:24:18 AM

Mark Seery,

I'll use the textbook examples you mention to clarify my opinion.

Lighthouses; A large shipping company is likely to build a lighthouse. Their business is such that it is profitable to operate 24/7 in good or bad weather, and the business revenue is sufficient to build and maintain a lighthouse. Other small shippers who can't afford a lighthouse on their own may benefit from the existance of a lighthouse, but will probably just choose to avoid night operations or bad weather if there isn't one. Now, if the large business can obtain the government's monopoly on the use of force to support them, they can get the lighthouse built and maintained for less than it would have cost them by using the public goods argument and forcing the small shippers and others to pitch in. Its a use of force, not a public good.

Fireworks; True, the fireworks display may not be presented if everyone can watch it for free, but the folks who are forced to pay almost certainly had better uses for the money, so forcing them to pay is a cost they would not have freely chosen. A use of force, not a public good.

Defense; By way of example, the American Revolution. The King's argument for taxing the colonists was that defense is a public good. The revolutionary's counter argument was that the King's defenses were of little value to them. So what happens when the revolutionaries win? They turn right around and justify taxation with the argument that defense is a public good. The idea of defense as a public good is just a rationalization and/or propaganda. The reality is that the force in power can pay less or nothing for something they want by forcing others to contribute. A use of force, not a public good.

Police; See Defense. And a history of police forces is also instructive. The original police forces were hired guns for those with something to protect. But these soon realized that the public goods argument could be used to force others to pay.

Healthcare; See fireworks. The people who might be forced to buy comprehensive healthcare plans probably have better uses for their money, or they would be paying for a plan now. I, for example, have already decided to leave whatever wealth I have managed to accumulate to my children and not to a hospital. Programs such as medicare or mandatory comprehensive coverage force me to give my wealth to the hospital. Once again, a use of force and not a public good.

Conclusion, the idea of a public good is an article of faith and a form of propaganda, not a reality.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 7, 2008 10:30:05 AM

Thanks Randy,

Your comments provide hope that there indeed may be a resolution to the public goods issue, and that it is worth discussing further.

Lighthouses: the reason I caveated my original comments with cost and availability of technology was to indicate that I am open to the idea that circumstances change over time. so it is reasonable to assume that companies with the scale and capital resources of modern shipping companies could afford to build lighthouses. but was it always reasonable to assume that? you can not just put a lighthouse anywhere, it has to go where the danger is. who owns that land? how can that land be acquired without a) force b) a significant capital formation capability.

Fireworks: I would concede that as much as I enjoy public fireworks displays, my enjoyment of them does not justify force. It is a very good illustrative example though of what a public good would look like, if fireworks were an essential service (and I concede they are not).

Defense: well while the revolutionary militia may have objected to funding the Kings army, some of them were themselves created by acts of government (at a state level) and wages funded by bonds/certificates. See Pennsylvannia for example. it was also one of Washington's complaints that he had trouble getting the militia to operate as a whole, and then we see the same problem in the South during the civil war with the North having more centralized management and some leveraged advantage from that (some argue). but perhaps a debate about history would not be so fruitful.

let us agree first on what an expense requirement might look like for the military under conditions that you would agree represent proper use of the military. before the Iraq war the budget for the military was something around $300 billion I believe (not including some research, veteran's affairs, etc.). say we satisfy everyone's concern about proper military use and pull back all forces from other countries. under those conditions, what do you estimate the yearly funding requirements would be for the military (including R&D and veterans affairs), how do you propose it would be funded, and how would the actions of the military be directed?

Police: I don't know the history of the police so I will accept your account. I am curious, in the hired guns scenario, did the hired guns only protect that which they were hired or were their *significant* free rider benefits. I of course note that police is often used as an example of free rider benefits (the presence on the corner of the street), but to satisfy the general problem you would have to satisfy a condition were hired guns lead to free rider benefits in every/most locations. or is the suggestion that each individual would hire his/her own security or a combination of both?

Healthcare: given my previous comments on this subject, I have nothing further to add.

Thanks for your thoughts, this is a constructive dialog.....

Posted by: mark seery | Jan 7, 2008 12:04:13 PM

Mark,

Your point about technology is good (and I meant to say so in my first response but got carried away with other points). I have often argued that modern technology could be used to replace many mandatory programs with user fees - e.g., the use of ez-pass to direct funding of roadways. But if a lack of technology is the reason for the use of the public goods argument, then why is it that the argument is being used ever more frequently even as technology advances exponentially? The answer, I think, is that the public goods argument works - that is, it allows the political class to create the types of programs they want to create. Mandatory programs are advantageous to the political class and there is no incentive to replace them with voluntary programs. And the truth, I think, is that many mandatory programs were always feasible even with earlier technology. Such options were just never seriously considered.

Re; Defense. We have to start by determining the value of defense. The political class would have us believe that the value of defense is infinite, but to the average individual, it is actually pretty close to zero. Given that there are thugs in the world, its probably a good idea to have some thugs on my side, but there's little value added to my life in maintaining them. At best, the value added is the difference between the cost of maintaining this particular group of thugs and the cost of maintaining some other group of thugs. I really have no way of knowing that I'm paying less for this group than I would for some other. In fact, my anti-government sentiment is a reflection of my belief that this particular group of thugs is too expensive and that they are taking advantage of their position to run a wide array of confidence games to run the cost up even higher.

Re; Police. I see no reason why a police force could not be funded voluntarily. They never show up until after the fact anyway and people who really need protection still have to hire bodyguards. If I need one, I'll hire one. If I want insurance I'll pay a user fee. Same with the fire department, by the way.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 7, 2008 2:21:21 PM

"When I read comments like that I can't help but think 'What are you? A drug dealer or something?!' I don't know where people like vidyohs and brotio think they would been if they were born 500 or more years ago." - Gil

Gil,

Did you also read the part in Vidyoh's post that reminded us about Waco and Ruby Ridge? Was Koresh a drug dealer? Weaver? Elian Gonzales? Two of the three are dead and the other is in hell.

Am I better off in this system than I would have been 500 years ago? Hell yes. But I know that when government has the power to give you everything you need, it also has the power to take it away, so I want to see it restrained in the manner intended by the framers of the US Constitution.

You seem to be of the opinion that if a little bit of government is good, then a lot must be better. I am of the opinion that a little bit of government is NECESSARY.

Posted by: brotio | Jan 7, 2008 4:31:41 PM

If we accept the assertion that government has a monopoly on violence.......

People (on this thread) seem to understand the downside of giving government a monopoly on violence, so I won't wax on that.

Conversely though it is argued there is an upside as well.

"Yeah businesses have the potential to be corrupt, but they are powerless without government."

The upside being not only is business powerless without government, but it is powerless *because* of government.

That is to say, if you give an entity a monopoly on violence/cooercion then that violence can be coopted by any segment of society including business (including the creation of government protected monopolies). At the same time, business can not easily and unopposed raise private armies and use those armies to cooerce individuals (maybe terrorism is a counter argument?). Similar to Gil's arguments about the protections government provides against monarchies (for example consider the reasons for and implications of "An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown", 1689).

This protection of individual liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. is considered one of the benefits of monopoly violence rights that the government has been granted.

Like all monopolies there are inefficiencies and abuses. In order to disband that monopoly right of violence, you have to suggest an alternative that would protect individuals from large concentrations of wealth and power, or simply say you think the downside of that approach would be better than the downside of the current approach.

Posted by: mark seery | Jan 7, 2008 6:37:25 PM

Randy,

"But if a lack of technology is the reason for the use of the public goods argument, then why is it that the argument is being used ever more frequently even as technology advances exponentially?"

Semantic overloading is common in natural and artificial languages. There is an increase in claims not based on the formal definition of public goods, but, imo, on a different category of goods. I don't know if economists have a term for them, but for the sake of this thread I will say "moral goods", i.e. those things which it is claimed we should do based on a moral claim.

That is to say if the market does not produce a result that is deemed the moral result, then a moral failure is observed (with the source being market failure), and government is called on to fix that moral failure. I won't dwell on specific claims and what I think of the merits of each, but I think it is important to observe that not everything that is claimed to be a public good fits the economic definition of one (non-rival and non-excludable), and therefore is really the case of semantic overloading/misuse of terminology. The problem of course with the term public good is that the words are simple enough that a non-economist can derive meaning from it.

I agree with your ez-pass example and that has occurred to me many times. A true market-based ex-pass system (where pricing is dynamically adjusted) does have some problems if not all roads in a region have the system as has been experienced in Singapore. However that is a nit, and just part of the discovery process. In principle I agree.

Posted by: mark seery | Jan 7, 2008 6:55:18 PM

"The upside being not only is business powerless without government, but it is powerless *because* of government.
Posted by: mark seery | Jan 7, 2008 6:37:25 PM"

I am afraid I have to disagree again. Business is powerless because of nature and choice, not government.

But, you see mark, government isn't to be congratulated or praised for doing its job,that is what it is there for and what it is paid to do. So this part, "it is powerless *because* of government." is part of its job.

I am a businessman, I pay people for performance. Employees who meet that expected performance get paid. Employees that produce beyond expectations get praise and bonuses.

muirduck is correct, I know government, the bureaucracies, employees, and how corrupting that atmosphere is; but unlike muirduck I had a mature and intelligent mind at a very young age and could see the hypocrisy and corruption, learn from it, and extrapolate my knowledge out to understand government period. muirduck, pathetic creature she/he/it is simply mews in broken english about things she/he/it knows not.
Enough about the village idiot.

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 7, 2008 7:58:11 PM

If I tried I could not come up with anything more irrelevant than what you just did, Gil-duck......."Well IF they had been born 500 years ago......." Sheesh, how jacked-up infantile can you get?

Perhaps, Gilduck, you'd like to ponder on the poor unfortunate young man who was shot to death on your underground by your own homegrown limey jackbooted goons, and very recently at that. Eh? Golly gosh what an unfortunate mistake huh? Except to the young man who was shot, it wasn't an unfortunate mistake to laugh about, oh no he was dead dead dead.

We have this principle in our hearts, brotio and I, that when one persons rights are violated, every one's rights are violated. Jack with my neighbor and you are jacking with me.

Brotio, myself, and others here in the USA had freedom loving ancestors who fought your royal arse kissing ancestors and won our freedom from the rule of aristocracy. Our ancestors took that to mean aristocracy of any kind, birth, election, wealth, or intellectual and passed us a tradition of fierce independence that we guard today against fools like muirduck and Gilduck who can't understand why we can't just relax and learn to love being screwed by government.

That the USA today has weak thumb suckers like muirduck is evidence that no cure is ever permanant.

Gil-duck, would you like for me to start sending you the constant and repititious violations of human rights that go on in this country on a daily basis. The goons, the thugs, and the slick lawyers that prey on ignorant people every day, all day? I'll be happy to.

Let me draw a simple analogy to help you understand what I know and you don't even suspect.

For a local police department, like Houston's, to have a SWAT team and never use it, is like the New York Yankees having the best reliever in Baseball (110 MPH fastball, curves and sliders at 105MPH, and a knuckleball at 100MPH for a change-up) and refuse to ever let him go to the mound. THEY CAN'T WAIT TO TURN 'EM LOOSE!

TASERS? Oh mi-gawd! Citizen, just give me anything I can interpret as resistance and lets see how fast I can put you on the ground with this neat little gadget!

Gil-duck, when arbitrary power is put in the hands of mental midgets then injustice is going to happen. Government is just chock full of mental midgets from top to bottom and the looooooove their arbitrary power.

But then you brits have your long traditions also, only yours involves being on your knees kissy kissy kissing up to the arse of royals and other aristocracy. Arbitrary power.....oh yeah..that describes your aristocracy.

Lord Gil-duck, I bid you adieu!

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 7, 2008 8:53:00 PM

Yeah yeah whatever. BTW I'm not British, rather Australian so there! I guess I have an anarchist streak at heart in that I wonder how many of those who bark on about freedom from taking orders happen to be those who love giving them? You know, those who would depose the current ruling power just to become another ruling power instead? Quite frankly most people I know who talk about not wanting to be told what to do fall into this category. So you might forgive if I can only see two types of ruling entities Democracy and Monarchies. In the same way when Rome fell, local rulers and strongmen consolidated their local power and became the ancestors of the aristocrats of Europe.

Posted by: Gil | Jan 7, 2008 9:44:31 PM

"Yeah yeah whatever." - Gil, what a stunning rebuttal!

BTW... The founders of the United States were highly unusual in NOT wanting to become the new ruling elite. So reluctant that they devised a Constitution that made it as difficult as possible for there to be a new ruling elite. Our first President left office after two terms to further reinforce the idea that there wasn't to be a ruling class. No law compelled him to do so, only uncommon wisdom. This served the Republic so well that every President refused to run for a third term until Murthaduck's ("the children they've killed in cold blood") hero decided that only He could save the United States.

The ratification of the Sixteenth (income tax) and Seventeenth (direct-election of Senators) Amendments also drastically altered the Constitution and encourage the formation of a ruling class.

You constantly accuse me of being an anarchist because I distrust government. Our Founding Fathers also distrusted government while at the same time they were creating one. I admire their wisdom and foresight.

Posted by: brotio | Jan 8, 2008 1:31:41 AM

Mark,

Moral goods sounds about right. Going with the term, my point is that the use of the public goods argument ALWAYS boils down to either moral goods or the self interest of the political class. Defense and police - self interest of the political class. Bridges to nowhere - self interest of the political class. Universal healthcare and social security - moral goods AND self interest of the political class. Do you have an exception?

Posted by: Randy | Jan 8, 2008 8:28:34 AM

Hi Randy,

So just to be clear, I am not the same "Mark" currently contributing on the parallel thread / follow-up post by Don ;-)

The short answer is I don't have a definitive response to your question. If you look at this article by Tyler Cowen:

http://www.econlib.org/library/ENC/PublicGoodsandExternalities.html

He does a pretty good job of providing a balanced view on the subject (well from my biased perspective anyway). He pretty much says public goods problems are less frequent than people think, but stops short of ruling it out all together.

When people talk of no government they raise two compelling issues: personal liberty and nationhood. Does being a nation have any meaning if there are no institutions of nationhood? Is unilaterally abolishing nationhood a good thing? The other is personal liberty - which you have explained you personally believe can be dealt with (no need to rexplain).

Before I personally concluded no government at all, as opposed to limited/focused government, then I would want to see a more detailed proposal of what the world looks like without the State Department, the Military, the INS, legal institutions (specifically protection of property rights), and police forces.

So having stated my position on this, two other things that do stike me as being interesting:

1) The Declaration of Independence is explicitly a moral justification for action (I think you responded to that on the other thread, so no need to again).

2) When a market delivers what most people want it to deliver it is considered a success, yet when government delivers what most people want it to deliver it is considered a failure (point 5 of: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303094_2.html )

On the later, Mr. Caplan also asserts that most voters are ill-informed and therefore by inference having power in their hands would be a bad thing. And I get that a market vote is different than a political vote because of the cooercion potential of the later. But it strikes me that regardless of what system we are voting in, economic or political, we are still faced with the same fundamental problem: information asymmetry. Therefore break throughs in this area could greatly assist both cases.

Posted by: mark seery | Jan 8, 2008 2:24:32 PM

Mark Seery,

I figured either you weren't the same Mark or that you had some kind of bi-polar thing going on :)

I read Tyler's article before (because I needed to freshen up on the idea of a public good - not an economist, just a hobbyist). He lays the pros and cons out pretty well, though to be honest I don't think he carries the cons far enough. Then again, I'm just exploring. I appreciate the feedback.

On the issue of abolishing nationhood, I've been thinking about the concept of "nation" quite a bit lately. I think this thread has about worn down so I won't get into it in detail. Suffice it to say that I don't think the idea of "nation" really applies to the United States. Its just a word that politicians like to use - like "mandate".

As for the comparison of government and market success/failure, if the government consisted of voluntary programs that people willingly paid for then such a comparison would be valid. But as things are, where what people want from government is mostly a free lunch, not so much.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 8, 2008 8:43:48 PM