Tonight, I'm going to show you where we are headed — attention liberal bloggers in basements everywhere: Please put down World of Warcraft 11 and sharpen your pencils — this all heads towards global governance.[...] So you have all of these countries going down in domino effect. We're starting to see now people are freaking out — wait a minute, wait a minute, what is happening in Europe? Apparently, their economies are all tied together. It's almost like we're all interdependent on each other. Here's the headline from Monday's Washington Post: 'One false move in Europe could set off global chain reaction.' OK, they've got part of it; there have already been about a hundred 'false moves,' but at least they are catching on that trouble is coming. I've been warning you about this and how Greece and other countries that fail will be pushed into a global framework. Well, the IMF is telling Greece, now that you've been bailed out, here's what you can and cannot spend. The IMF hasn't even bailed out Spain yet, but they are pressuring them for far-reaching and comprehensive reform of the country. Europe, I hope you enjoyed sovereignty while you had it.[ emphases mine]America and the whole world are headed towards economic failure.
And according to Beck this Financial bill will give the government control over 60% of the U.S. economy. And he points to the fact that many of these reforms taking place won't be repealed. This financial bill gives a lot of new powers to the government and with combined with other recent reforms will give the government control over 60% of the economy.
We've got another major reform about to get jammed down our throats![...] The United Nations in their Human Development Report says: 'Governance is not government — it is the framework of rules, institutions and practices that set limits on behavior of individuals, organizations and companies.[...] We're making the same mistakes we make in the 1930s, except the first time we made these mistakes, the American people didn't know what progressives were really about and there was no global structure in place. When FDR died in office, we could still reverse many of the things he tried to do. But this time, we won't be able to, because your representatives won't have any control.[...] Again, I ask you to call your representative at the IMF and complain if you don't like that fact that America spent $50 billion in tax money to bail out Greece. Call your representative at the U.N. and say you won't vote for him next time. Contact the World Bank and let them know that you'll close your bank account with them if you have to.[emphases mine]
These two links are interesting. Looking at current events with understanding of history, the nature of government, and human nature, directed me into agreeing with this point of view and it has been confirmed in the various books I have read over the past year and a half.
The current direction the world is heading--IF things don't change-- shows that decades down the road the world could united and under the thumb of some one world political system.Things have only headed more towards this direction in the past year and made it less likely to not happen.
Sad.
ReplyDeleteThe undisputable fact is that world trade is increasing, that's non-debateable. Also, world financial markets are increasing as well. As trade in both markets increase, to ensure that everyone is playing fair, there needs to be some regulation.
ReplyDeleteWhy regulation is needed:
Because the free market is inefficient due to the lack of perfect competition. Perfect competition doesn't exist due to the ability of firms to pass their costs on to others (thus avoiding internalizing costs, which would most efficiently lead firms to make cost benefit decisions) as externalities and to pass costs off to others because of asymmetries in information (Goldman Sachs duping people into the viability of mortgages). Firms are only concerned about their internal costs and not the external costs they force others to bear. At the point this is true, government is needed to protect the commons and protect society from shouldering an unnecessary burden. The purpose of regulation and government is to make information more perfect for everyone participating and to force firms to internalize their costs (this is why we have civil courts where people can sue for harms on them, fishermen suing the Tannery that kills their fish, etc). This is also why we force firms to tell the truth in advertising. So when we start trading with Bhutan and import their fabrics, how the hell are we going to ensure that they don't have poisons on them that cheapen their costs relative to our shirts, but aren't told to us? There needs to be a big evil government regulator to tell improve our information as well as to ensure competition is on the same page.
Notice I'm in no way advocating for government providing safety nets for firms that leads to moral harzard :)
So yes, Mr. Beck is correct, the more interdependent the world becomes, the more world regulation there needs to be. What's debateable about this fact is if such coordination will be nefarious or will most efficiently promote the common good. If the price of sovereignty is to allow other governments to cheat (export/R&D/production subsidies) or to make international commerce more expensive because of gross differences in information, legal constraints, etc, I say sovereignty is not worth it. The only people that profit from that system are producers in inefficient sectors of the economy, and political leaders that don't want to be held accountable to an international standard (exp: the far left and far right in Europe that advocate for sovereignty and protectionism are supported by volatile and outdated industries and blue collar workers ironically).
We should ask Mr. Beck what would he prefer: protectionism, unfree Chinese imports, or legitimate World Trade; before debating his chalk board fantasy link chain to Big Brother.
Melkor makes some good points, but I think you are missing the whole point of what he is saying and my point of view as presented in previous posts about Greece. IO's and the so-called evil world government is not a bad thing in and of itself. I agree that IO's are necessary if there is to be free global trade. I believe global trade is good. It will be a good thing when artificial trade barriers called national boundaries and to some extent national sovereignty are done away with. IF these individual nation states and sovereignty are replaced with a global system based off of capitalism and free trade. I don't think that it is going to be based off of free trade. Just because one is against a socialism or communism gov does not mean that he is against any form of government. I think you are viewing this increasingly interconnected world and its IO's through a one dimensional prism: one where only a benign government and free-prosperous trade can emerge. I think you fail to take into account how this world government is coming about and what its foundation is being built off of.
ReplyDeleteOn: "Because the free market is inefficient due to the lack of perfect competition." The article that you read that from had many problems with it and I would disagree with this statement. The lack of perfect competition came from gov intervention. And the gov's solution to solve this is more gov intervention. What brought about Goldman Sachs duping everybody? Government intervention. The gov forced the banks to take on bad loans. What were they supposed to do with this worthless assets? GS and the gov are in bed with each other. It is a collusion between big gov and private enterprise: fascism. The biggest reform to take place since the 30's was passed and it was written by the very same people that led to the current global economic downturn. How is this going to be a good thing?
This ever increasing global trade and financial markets are being built off of a foundation of debt and is headed towards a collapse. Greece and the EU are a microcosm of where these IO's and global trade are leading the world: IO's leading to economic collapse and as a result of this more powerful IO"S. The EU created the ability and incentives for the PIIGS to run huge budget deficits. And now the world is bailing them out and creating more powers for the IO's to regulate these nations. All the while the fundamental structural problems are not being addressed but are continuing to be built higher leading to a larger collapse.
You don't need a gov to determine if a country is selling poisoned goods. A private certifying organization can do this. If they do sell bad products, then they will not be successful in a truly free global market and they will suffer. This creates a strong enough incentive for them to not do such a thing in the first place.
On complete capitalism being a bad thing: "But today’s statist onslaught is the result of a deeply entrenched set of ideas about the proper purpose of government. Virtually everyone today believes that unrestricted capitalism is immoral and dangerous, and that the government’s role is to actively intervene in the economy in order to achieve the 'public good.' So long as these ideas remain unchallenged, and no positive alternative is offered, no protest will be able to change the country's course."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would ask you, Melkor, if you would prefer a more interconnected global economy and larger more powerful IO's that are based off of an unsolid foundation, massive debt, that is leading to collapse and one that is built off of socialism or what ever you want to call it or would you rather have one based off of capitalism or free trade? There is more than the two false choices that you present: a more interconnected world or a less interconnected world. An argument against the current form that the global gov is taking is not an argument against a GG per se. There does exist the possibility that this new world order that Obama talked about at West Point could be one based off of socialism as opposed to one based off of capitalism.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you see the financial reform and current developments leading to? The fact is that the global economic system will collapse and these IO's are helping to bring this about.
Here is a good article discussing perfect competition by Hayek. It is long and difficult to read. http://mises.org/daily/4181
ReplyDelete"The confusion between the objective facts of the situation and the character of the human responses to it tends to conceal from us the important fact that competition is the more important the more complex or "imperfect" are the objective conditions in which it has to operate. Indeed, far from competition being beneficial only when it is "perfect," I am inclined to argue that the need for competition is nowhere greater than in fields in which the nature of the commodities or services makes it impossible that it ever should create a perfect market in the theoretical sense. The inevitable actual imperfections of competition are as little an argument against competition as the difficulties of achieving a perfect solution of any other task are an argument against attempting to solve it at all, or as little as imperfect health is an argument against health."
Note: government involvement is leading to no competition.
The whole topic is rather deep and would require a very long post to define what PC is and if it is an applicable economic model to the problem of competition or free markets. The article that this topic came from has several flaws and makes wrong assumptions. The main point in regards to the topic of the post is that government involvement distorts economic calculation on the part of individuals and business. A monopoly can not exist without government support of it. Government caused the problem and leads to more gov involvement to solve the problem: "the crises of intervention". The type of regulation, to include international, being implemented to solve this problem only leads to more of the same problem.
On the point of Goldman Sachs passing its cost off on others, they would never had had to do that in the 1st place if it were not for the gov forcing them to make to bad loans and thus taking on the bad assets. The fact is that now the government has taken this cost of bad loans out of the private sector and they have made the taxpayer responsible for these bad assets: "The report warned that these supports mean the government 'has done more than simply support the mortgage market, in many ways it has become the mortgage market, with the taxpayer shouldering the risk that had once been borne by the private investor.'" The gov now backs 96% of all U.S. mortgages. So in this instance government involvement has led to the very same thing that you are blaming the private sector for, except on a larger scale. This is the type of gov involvement is an example of what IO's are enacting.
I don't know how an international governing body that is composed of all socialist nations is supposed to led to one based of of capitalism and free trade? Russia, commie, China, commie, EU, socialist, America, socialist/unknow, Africa, small despotic commie rulers, India,?, Middle East, religious crazies, South America, socialist,. Socialism is its own worse enemy. A system based off of this will eventually collapse. The world's movement towards more interconnectiness won't be stopped and would cause a lot of problems if it did.
Darn you college kids and your big words. I'll weigh in once I can marshall my thoughts on this complex topic. Suffice it to say I disagree to a certain extent on where both of you guys are heading. I agree that the general trends have been and possibly continue to be in the world-governance direction (though so far more in the Socialist direction than the Capitalist), and capability to intertwine provided by global telecommunications help ease this, and there are very few that still talk about reining in global trade, but I say "watch Germany". The rich will not forever bail out the poor. And the second thing is nationality still means something and will continue to do so for some time, possibly even more so, but I agree that it appears at the moment to be failing. More on that later.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about your point that the rich nations, Germany, America, will not continue to bail out the poor. Bail outs will continue until there is no more money to do so. Germany wanting to maintain the EU structure and the EU's image led it to bail out Greece. And the fact is that their economies were tied together thus making a bailout a perceived necessary choice to prevent shor term economic pain--this is why America has helped to bail them out. This is called MAD. If one major economy collapses then the whole world will be affected, thus creating the perceived need for bailouts to prevent short term economic pain. I read there is a lot of political capital and incentives, money, power, prestige, for the politicans to maintain the EU. The rich nations tied themselves to the smaller ones, then they created the incentives for them to run up debt, then they failed to maintain the required fiscal standards, now they are bailing them out and forcing them to make changes-- a good thing now. This all seems like a self perpetuating system that is leading to a more interconnected world.
ReplyDeleteThe foundation of this global economic system is not a solid one. It is based on debt, Keynesian economics, and mixed economic systems/welfare states that are composed of a larger part of government involvement than the private sector. The fact that there is even talk or questions if the world is broke--see Fox business-- points to how weak the econ foundation is. Nations and U.S. states are broke. Read the CBO reports and current news articles to see this. We are witnessing the failure of the welfare state. Unfournately it is not leading to the end of this bad policy but instead the expansion of it. When all of this bad economic policy comes to a head in the form of a major world economic downturn, it will require a global and united response to deal with the problem. The question is if the response will be one that makes tough decisions to cut welfare and social benefits and government involvement in the economies of the world or it will continue to take shape like it has with the bailouts in America and the EU--more government involvement and pushing the world under a the control of IO's?
On the point of nationality and technology, I don't think that within my lifetime the world will be a united under a complete one world system where national boundaries and nationality will be done away with. This is why a completely united world won't happen. A more united world is the consequence of the advancement in technology. See the video http://robinsontalkingpoints.blogspot.com/2009/07/dr-kaku-on-changes-occuring-in-human.html
I just got an 87% on my economics mid term, so I can basically answer any of your questions.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with economics is that no one knows the most efficient way to distribute scarce resources which have alternative uses. There are so many unaccountable variables and intangibles that can not be computed. The same reason a planned economy doesnt work is because people cant account for everything in an economy. I hear good points to regulate international trade but Dean makes a good point that if someone is selling something that is unhealthy, it wouldnt be profitable for long and no one would attempt to take on an unprofitable endeavor in the first place. Free market would ultimately weed out the immoral businesses and there would be no incentive to be immoral in the first place.
With that being said, if someone sells me a product and it kills my son, I will want answers. Especially if someone knew that people would die but the benefits for the company outweighed the costs and sold it to me anyway. I would then turn around and kill more peole and then we would have a bloody mess.
So how much regulation do we need? And who can say what can be regulated and what can't? Is it to big? Is it to small?
When it is all said and done, I believe all RTP's readers can draw one conclusion from this thread...Melkor is a Commi.
Toe face, I need to know the importance of keeping tract of the M-3 money supply?
ReplyDeleteThe free market is the most efficient way to use scarce resources. The main objective of the free market is not to "distribute" scare resources, but it does do this the most efficiently. The main purpose is to utilize these scare resources in the most efficient way that satisfies the needs and wants of people. Distribute has the connotation of central planning. A complete free market with a gov confined to its limited and proper role, see below, has never existed, if it has I don't have an example, so we can't say for certain that it would not work; but we have had a near complete command system and that has proven a failure, even in such a system there arises small free markets elements such as black markets that keeps the system barely afloat. We have had a welfare/socialist systems and we are in the process of witnessing the failure of this system. The question is what will it led to? The free market is the system that is the most compatible with human nature.
Nobody is arguing for no government regulation. Gov is a necessary evil that arises from the problems in human nature that leads to thieves and leaches. There is the need to enforce contracts and basic functions like that. The question is how much and what kind? The government has over regulated the health care industry and this has created the problems with our current health care system. This gov involvement led to a much larger role for the gov in the private health care sector. Does the gov need to approve of new medicines or license doctors? I think the government should have a very limited role. Read "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman or finish "Basic Economics" by Sowell.
It was inevitable, after spending so much time in the Belly of the Beast that Melkor would absorb some of those Commie sentiments, but yes, the government's role should be to smooth competition, at least between the states, if not nations.
ReplyDeleteToeJamm poses a very tough question. As Jeff says, and as we all know, unfettered Free Markets would be most agile at getting to the right answer. I'd say the courts would be the place where someone who suffered from a product would get recompensed, rather than over-regulation by the government. But, not a clean answer.
So, my contribution to this conversation is to say that everybody is making good points.
I don't think I have been able to properly state my whole position on this subject. The government, to include an international one, does have a role to play in the economy and international affairs. For there to be global trade and interaction among nations there does need to be a [L]imited framework of global governance and governmental organizations to enforce basic and limited rules of the road. I don't know much about the WTO or other IO's so I don't know if they perform this limited function. My whole argument is not against globalization or global trade or IO's or the world becoming more interconnected in and of itself. The question I have is where is this leading the world to? To gain an understanding of the answer to this question, one needs to look at the context that these developments are taking place in and what the actual effects of these developments are and what is the type of government that makes up the majority of the nations of the world that are coming together and looking at the developments in the EU. Globalization in and of itself is a good thing, but when I put these developments in the above mentioned context I question if this will actually be a good thing for free markets and freedom in general. I see a weak-socialist economic foundation that will collapse; and as has been the case in with economic downturns and perceived failures of the free markets, governments use this as a reason to grow at the expense of the private sector: the "crises of intervention". I also look at who and where the call for global governance is coming from: socialist. I also look at what the effects of major reforms that are occurring here and in the global arena: financial reform, health care, EU and the bailouts, and bailouts of businesses, states and nations. The reforms are leading to more government. Maybe I am missing something.
ReplyDelete@Jeff "EU = Bailouts"
ReplyDeleteI think this is a hyperbolic statement. You make it seem like the EU had constructed the system with a diabolical aim of nurturing the current crisis. Far from it, the Euro was supposed to be the champion of everything you argue for. Low state deficits, limited and sustainable debt, etc. It's not like Ms. Merkel is doing a happy dance because she gets to bail out Greece. A correct assessment of the Euro crisis is not that the Euro is full of hyper-spending socialists (compare Germany's, Finland's, Sweden's debt to GDP ratios to ours and you might cry in your sleep), but that they their laughable bluff of "enforcement" for the Maastrict Criteria (those rules that any fiscal conservative would wish to enforce on the world) was finally called. The strict criteria for the euro isn't going to change, the rules for admission, possible rules for exclusion, and enforcement are going to come from this. It's a political necessity or Germany is simply going to withdraw and re-establish the deutsch mark.
On the issue of debt, the EU has already taken the wind out of Jeff's sails and introduced all the rules that we think an accountable government should follow budget wise. Creating the mechanisms that actually make that happen is the next process. But even if you want to harp on the EU's willingness to make those rules, step back for a second and realize THAT WE HAVE NO SUCH RULES. This isn't a problem perpetuated by Obama, this is a problem that has been passed off from every single republican and democrat administration since the end of WWII.
@ Jeff's Question of International Free Trade or Socialist Trade
Umm, trade has risen since the end of the cold war directly proportional to the rise of liberal economic policies. It will be have to be freer trade. Socialist countries are terrible at trading with each other. So, no. I don't have to support more trade servicing an international socialist conspiracy since the first sign that such a conspiracy is developing is if trade declines.
@ Regulation.
I'm glad we all agree that abuse should be compensated and that we all think, "the courts" should solve this. Let us also remember that the courts don't make the rules, they only serve ensure that the rules are being followed. These rules come from legislation. If you think courts should solve for abuse, you imply that there should be laws that state as much. You now believe in regulation. Therefore, the debate about Goldman-Sachs, or any other regulatory matter shouldn't be apriori opposed because "regulation is bad" but, should be determined if there exists a chance that the common good is threatened by the unregulated practices of the situation at hand. You argue for the common good when you trace your arguments for the free market being preferable at the point that it offers the most efficient distribution of resources. This also means that if there are certain goods that are more efficiently produced by Public rather than Private means, we shouldn't oppose them simply on the basis that it's "government." The economic students here should recognize security and roads as such goods that are better produced by government.
I think of all government programs in these terms, and don't oppose them simply because they're government, I try to decide if it is more efficient to do it this way or privately. Small government and the free market shouldn't be religious mantra's we follow, but viewed from a rational cost-benefit analysis.
@ Healthcare
I'm not going to lie, I could care less about this. But, I think a half assed private/public system that we have going is wasteful. I would prefer it be more free or more public, but I think the SQ is overly burdensome because it is part of both.
Melkor: "I would prefer it[health care] be more free or more public, but I think the SQ is overly burdensome because it is part of both." I think that a halfway system that we have can't continue to exist and that it will either go towards more private or more public, but I don't think that the more public option is the way to go because of the examples in Britian and Canada--note the as part of the condition of receiving a bailout Greece must privatize its gov health care system. This statement reveals a lot about your beliefs about the proper role of government. If you believe that government can run the health care system better than the private sector and that it would be proper, than no argument or presentation of facts will convince you otherwise. Health care is 1/6 of the economy. The government will eventually control this. Has there ever been a successful country where the government played a large role that nation's economy? We will have this system and we can observe how it works out in the coming decades.
ReplyDeleteOn EU=Bailouts: The stated intentions of politicans are often very different from the actual effect of a particular policy. Obama was suppose to save the economy and heal the planet--things I want, but that has not worked out. What has the EU lead to? Failed nations that need bailouts from the IMF, America, and the ECB to prevent the collapse of the EU due to the fact that they are interconnected to such an extent. Now it is leading to a more powerful EU that will require a lot more power to enforce and manage this union. I wonder what the effect of putting too much power in any government is, especially one that led to the current econ problems. The problem with the EU or any government is the make up of its electorate or population. This determines the government. In a perfect world there would be no government, but we live in a real world. So the EU is not totally to blame. I am not attributing any nefarious schemes to the design of the EU--it is simply human nature that led to where we are. But the fact is that it did help lead to the current situation regardless of the intentions of the designers of the EU. It came about as the result of human nature: it removed any incentive for smaller nations not to run up large deficits and failed to enforce its own rules. "When you give people the wrong incentives, people respond accordingly." I am against any system that created incentives to pursue destructive policies and then forces the world to pay for the result of these destructive policies. What are you basing the claim that Germany will withdraw from the EU? I know that its government is under pressure from its public to not bail out Greece so this is probably just talk. I read that they wanted to preserve the EU at all cost. I have read that there is a lot of politicians and economic incentives for the EU politic to maintain the EU at all cost
On the issue of debt: My boat is powered by diesel fuel so I am still moving. The rules do sound good, but I have read that it is yet to be seen if they will have a big enough impact or if they will carrying them out or if it will be possible to do so--look at the above example with the Maastrict Criteria and the protest in Greece. But the fact is that the world economy is based on a system of debt and a collapse from this is a very real possibility UNLESS this debt is reigned in. The fact is that measures that will actually reduce this debt to a manageable level will cause an economic downturn and some serious pain. It is yet to be seen if there is enough political will or resolve to carry this out. Another element in this is how will people react to all their benefits being reduced or eliminated and a depression? And how will this affect governments' ability to carry out these necessary policies? These are the problems of a system that creates incentives to run up massive debt by promising to provide too much and a people that want the gov to provide for them. Obama is not the only cause nor did all of this start with him. (I only hear the push for global governance coming from the left.) I have stated such on more than one occasion. Do you believe that the world economy is built on a solid foundation and that the ramifications of the massive sovereign debt is being overblown and is not that big of a threat? America being 13 trillion in debt that will increase by at least 1 trillion for the next decade and will approach the levels of Greece by this time and some of its states being broke is not that big of a deal? Will this be solved without the further increase in government involvement which caused the situation in the 1st place? The governments proposal to solve this involve more regulation of the type that led to the situation in the 1st place.
ReplyDeleteInternational free trade or socialist trade: There has not been an increase in liberal, in the classical sense, economic policies at the same time that trade has increased. The nations of the world have been moving more towards a socialist economic model at the same time trade has increased. Just because A accompanies B does not mean that they have a cause and effect relationship. So a decrease or increase in trade does not go hand in hand with an increase or decrease in socialism; and an in/decrease in global trade does not led to an in/decrease of socialism.
Regulation: You are equating all regulation with good regulation and my argument against this particular form of regulation being against all forms of regulation. This is not so and is a bad argument against my position that this particular form of regulation is not good. The recent financial regulation is not good, but yes there are some good forms of regulation. In the case of Goldman Sachs, the "common good" was not threatened by unregulated practices of the situation at hand". It was brought about by government interference and regulation in the 1st place. So to solve this we will have more regulation of the type that brought about the threat to the common good--same with health care.
ReplyDeleteMelkor: "You argue for the common good when you trace your arguments for the free market being preferable at the point that it offers the most efficient distribution of resources." The free market runs health care and the financial and the car industry and the student loan business and just about everything else better than the government. Just because the government can provide military security and very small and few other things better does not mean that it can run the entire economy or entire sectors of it, as the health care and financial reform will lead to. If the gov could somehow more efficiently run the entire economy than the private citizens acting together in a free market, would you approve of that?
From what you have said you believe that there should be a larger and more active role of governments to include IOs in the private sector. This is the trend that will continue. We will be able to see how this works out. Are governments to blame for the problems we have? Not completely, it is the people that make up those govs. Just about any form of gov leads to the same thing--eventual tyranny. So my problem is not necessarily with govs; I am merely point out a fact. How has large governments worked out in history? I see government involvement in the economies, EU/bailouts, of the world having led to the current problems we have and the solution in America and the world is more government involvement of the type that caused the problems in the 1st place. It is a downward spiral. "All varieties of interference with the market phenomena not only fail to achieve the ends aimed at by their authors and supporters, but bring about a state of affairs which-from the point of view of their authors’ and advocates’ valuations—is less desirable than the previous state of affairs which they were designed to alter. If one wants to correct their manifest unsuitableness and preposterousness by supplementing the first acts of intervention with more and more of such acts, one must go farther and farther until the market economy has been entirely destroyed and socialism has been substituted for it." This is happening on a global scale
I haven't been keeping up with this thread and missed Melkor's response. Yes, the Interstate Highway system is a good example of something that a super-national governmental organization can impliment and something that we Small-Government Conservatives need to address. There is simply no way the Interstate Highway system would have happened without Big Government, and it is without doubt a Very Good Thing for the general prosperity of all Americans. The same could be said for the great advances is digital technology that happened because of the Space Race in the '60's, though I'd say the Interstate Highways are the best example of Big Government doing Good. The answers are certainly not black & white.
ReplyDeleteThat is a good point. The interstate highway was brought about by the threat of nuclear war. One of the proper roles of government is to provide for the defense of the nation. The question is would it have been brought about without federal government action in response to a national security threat? The same could be said about the space race. Trade among the states would have given a good reason for the states to build this.
ReplyDeleteOn if the government or the private sector can do things better than roads or public utilities or the space race or what not: we can never know since the private sector has never been allowed to do it. It is like capitalism. It has never existed so we can't say for certain that it does not work. We have had total government and that does not work.
Anarchy is the way to go in a perfect world. But we live in a real world that needs limited government regulation. The thing is that any amount of government regulation eventually leads to more and more government. The problem does not lie in governments but the people that choose the leaders and governments. The fact is that government's of the world are growing and expanding into and at the expense of the private sector and individual freedoms. I don't think this is a good thing when I take a look at history.