I actually agree with some of this, which makes me kind of nervous. ;)
I gave Kellen this analogy once for why I oppose libertarianism. A bottle cap company makes millions of bottles every year. The bottle cap company finds out that one of the products they use to make their bottle caps is actually leeching poison into the beverages they go on. Should the company stop producing bottle caps altogether, or should the company find a different way to make their bottle caps? This is kind of how I feel about government: it’s definitely got its problems, but I think the solution is not to get rid of it altogether, but to change how it works.
You argue that you’ve never seen evidence that the right people to wield government power exist. I’ve never seen evidence that the right people to wield market power exist. I find it interesting when people critique the current government/market system and they only point to the government as being the problem. The truth is, business leaders are gunning as hard as they can to use the government to gain market benefits: locking out competition, getting a pass on unhealthy and unsafe products, etc. There is no reason to believe that in the absence of government, they wouldn’t find another way to gain power and to use that power for the exploitation of the consumer in order to drive up profits.
Not to say that the government is innocent (HA!)—rather that I think anyone who argues that the people who exploit their government positions for personal gain and the people who exploit their market positions for personal gain don’t have anything in common (hint: it has to do with human nature) is smoking something. Figuratively, obviously, since I think you said at one point you don’t smoke. :) Just as I think it is ridiculous to argue that the government alone can make the market run perfectly, I think it is ridiculous to argue that the market alone can make the country run perfectly. There needs to be balance…and that includes the balance between government/constituent and business/consumer. What we need to do is find smart solutions to achieve equilibrium.
Shoot, you had to reblog me before I fixed my markdown-to-HTML error. Of course corrupt individuals will seek government aid in gaining unfair advantage. To me, that’s one of the strongest reasons for not allowing the government to have that power. If the government functions as a protector against fraud, you have substantially less to worry about. And no, the market can’t run the country perfectly. Nothing can. But providing the government with more power cannot help. It greatly increases the consequences of mistakes made by single individuals with much to gain from positive outcomes and little to lose from negative outcomes. And I say that recognizing that thresholds exist. Certainly I recognize benefits to government power to regulate fraud. Civil defense? Count me in. Heck, I’m even a fan of public education (which makes me persona non grata in some libertarian circles). But I think it’s clear that we’ve crossed the threshold in nearly every aspect of life. Remember, you’ve not only got to provide a reason for the government to wield some power, but at the federal level, you’ve got to find a president, 51 senators (50 if you also provide a vice-president), and 218 representatives that you trust to manage that power. And remember that people in Texas trying to remove Thurgood Marshall from history books get to vote on who manages that power (this isn’t a dig on your home state as a dig against you, it’s just a dig on your home state). And remember, once they’ve got the power, you’ve got to rely on only good people wielding it from now on. My argument is fairly specific to power at the federal level, where the votes of individuals will never matter.
I can’t promise you that there wouldn’t be a company to fear today if not for taxpayer support. And I don’t personally have solutions to many problems facing us. In fact, I can’t promise that the market will provide solutions to all our problems. I can, however, promise that the government cannot solve all of our problems (and yes, that’s a canard, you aren’t arguing otherwise). That doesn’t mean that the market wouldn’t, on average, provide better solutions, though. Pareto optimum is a powerful tool. Comparative advantage is a powerful tool (and be careful, the market rewards “value,” not “merit.”). While the government can find Pareto optimal solutions, it isn’t governed by constraints that lead to them. Individuals, however, are. With government, you rely on the ability of many individuals, spending resources gathered from others, to solve a problem. With the market, you rely on the ability of individuals, spending resources gathered from those with a vested interest in solving the problem, to solve a problem. And just to pre-empt squashed, I’ll admit that there are coordination problems and timing problems. However, while these may be current limitations to the markets, they certainly haven’t been solved by government.
At least at the local level, there are actual voter checks against the government. It’s so rare at the federal level that an election doesn’t go the way of the best funding that it’s big news when it happens. It’s the empirical data, as opposed to some pseudo-intellectual theory, that makes me doubt the claim that government can be fixed and still be centralized and powerful. And that’s your analogy, right? That the government can be fixed without vastly curtailing its power (the bottle cap company should fix their manufacturing process, not abandon the business)? What makes you believe this is even possible? Both Republican and Democrat politicians have increased agriculture subsidies at the expense of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc. Both sides have increased defense spending beyond any level of reasonability. Both parties transferred wealth from the population as a whole to the financial industry. Both parties supported the patriot act. Our governmental system virtually guarantees a two-party system, but both parties have failed.
For me, the situation is even worse. I’m not convinced that decentralized and powerful is much of an improvement. We’ve all heard of horror stories of the mayor or sheriff gone bad. I’ve personally encountered a particularly vengeful district attorney once. I’ve met several law enforcement officers (in social situations) that were a harm to justice. I can’t imagine what would happen if any of them were truly in charge. But there’s never really been a period in recent history of decreased power in government. There have been some upsetting periods of shifting the accountability of governmental power from the people to corporations, but that doesn’t help anyone.
And no, I don’t smoke. But I have been drinking (still drinking Chilean wines).
