Hi,
However, overall I do agree with you. Government should supply the minimum it can in terms of services and in regulations of the services that it does not supply. But what that minimum is is hard to determine.
Consider the history of firefighting. What started as a community effort (often ineffective) became a function of private companies. However, an uninsured property then became a liability to all surrounding properties since it would be permitted to burn uncontrolled. In some places, laws were passed requiring everyone to have insurance, but these laws were largely a failure because of people who ignored them, of abandoned properties, and of insurance carriers who did not have the actual means of containing fires. So, for the common good, the government took over the duties of firefighting.
One can argue that this is bad, a move toward socialism, an infringement by the government into private affairs, and a source of inefficiencies. And all those arguments would be valid. But they are all trumped, IMHO, by the fact that too many people were too stupid, too apathetic, too cheap to buy fire protection. And so, to protect the 10% of the worthwhile population from the 90% of the morons, the government stepped in. Of course, by doing so, it also protected the morons from themselves. What would be your solution?
So, yeah, the government keeps getting bigger. Should we privatize the school systems? Maybe. The correctional institutions? Probably not. The postal service? If you've ever lived on a rural route, as I have, you'd say "Hell, no!" The roads and highways? Possibly, though it would take a bit of technology.
It's easy to say 'cut government'. But if you examine why the government runs some functions that it does, it's harder to see how to cut it.
As to the markets, either extreme runs into problems. Somewhere in the middle, a well regulated (but not over regulated) free market (and that is NOT a contradiction) is the solution. However, unlike the simplistic and ineffectual extremes, something in the middle is difficult to achieve and how to achieve it is open to much argument. It takes intelligence to run a country, but only money and charisma to be put into the position to try.
--Pete
Quote:53 percent of American's are employed by the government already.I'm not sure I buy that. From your link, "The economist Gary Shilling totaled up federal, state, and local government workers, plus private-sector workers who owe their jobs to government, plus recipients of Social Security, other transfer payments, and benefits such as food stamps. He also tacked on the dependents of these direct beneficiaries." So, the construction worker building the highway is counted even though he's working for a private company that has a government contract. The truck driver and his two kids are counted because his wife is a teacher. Etc.. Reminds me of the old saw, "figures lie and liars figure."
However, overall I do agree with you. Government should supply the minimum it can in terms of services and in regulations of the services that it does not supply. But what that minimum is is hard to determine.
Consider the history of firefighting. What started as a community effort (often ineffective) became a function of private companies. However, an uninsured property then became a liability to all surrounding properties since it would be permitted to burn uncontrolled. In some places, laws were passed requiring everyone to have insurance, but these laws were largely a failure because of people who ignored them, of abandoned properties, and of insurance carriers who did not have the actual means of containing fires. So, for the common good, the government took over the duties of firefighting.
One can argue that this is bad, a move toward socialism, an infringement by the government into private affairs, and a source of inefficiencies. And all those arguments would be valid. But they are all trumped, IMHO, by the fact that too many people were too stupid, too apathetic, too cheap to buy fire protection. And so, to protect the 10% of the worthwhile population from the 90% of the morons, the government stepped in. Of course, by doing so, it also protected the morons from themselves. What would be your solution?
So, yeah, the government keeps getting bigger. Should we privatize the school systems? Maybe. The correctional institutions? Probably not. The postal service? If you've ever lived on a rural route, as I have, you'd say "Hell, no!" The roads and highways? Possibly, though it would take a bit of technology.
It's easy to say 'cut government'. But if you examine why the government runs some functions that it does, it's harder to see how to cut it.
As to the markets, either extreme runs into problems. Somewhere in the middle, a well regulated (but not over regulated) free market (and that is NOT a contradiction) is the solution. However, unlike the simplistic and ineffectual extremes, something in the middle is difficult to achieve and how to achieve it is open to much argument. It takes intelligence to run a country, but only money and charisma to be put into the position to try.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?